Gay Marriage Upheld by USSC in Close Ruling

[alfred russel]

Based on the quoted excerpts seem to be a thinly veiled call to vote Republican so that those liberal judges might get replaced at some point.

I don't think so. A Republican president isn't going to round up dissenting USSC justices or anything.

It sounds to me like a not so thinly veiled temper tantrum.

[The Minsky Moment]

No the "just" is the problem.  He's not "just" a Republican - being a Republican is really almost incidental.  What make him distinctive is his particular judicial philosophy and approach, not his partisanship.  Everyone is citing Scalia's opinion but he was not the principal dissent in the case.  Thomas is the only one to sign the Scalia opinion.

[Caliga]

Governor Beshear has ordered all Kentucky state and local agencies to immediately comply with the USSC ruling.  Take that slackjaws 

[Valmy]

I wonder if this means my buddy who refused to marry his girlfriend until we have marriage equality will now have to go through with it 

[Caliga]

I wonder if this means my buddy who refused to marry his girlfriend until we have marriage equality will now have to go through with it 

Just like I wonder if the Texas pastor who threatened to set himself on fire if we have marriage equality will now have to go through with it. 

[Martinus]

Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito Suddenly Realize They Will Be Villains In Oscar-Winning Movie One Day

WASHINGTON—Shortly after turning in dissenting opinions in landmark federal rulings today that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and conferred full federal benefits to married same-sex couples, Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John G. Roberts, and Samuel Alito reportedly realized today that they would someday be portrayed as villains in an Oscar-winning film about the fight for marriage equality. "Oh, God, the major social ramifications, the political intrigue, all the important people involved in the case—I'm going to be played by some sinister character actor in a drama with tons of award buzz, aren't I?" said Scalia, joining his fellow dissenting justices in realizing they would be antagonists in a film potentially titled Defense Of Marriage and probably written by Tony Kushner. "I'm going to be portrayed as a closed-minded Neanderthal and the very symbol of backward thinking. And at the end of the movie, when my character realizes he's on the wrong side of history, the audience will feel emotionally fulfilled because the hero attorney, probably played by George fucking Clooney, will have won. Great." While they added that they aren't looking forward to being vilified on screen, Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas all agreed that the movie would probably be pretty good, and that they could see Paul Dano getting his first Academy Award nomination for his supporting role as a gay rights crusade

The Onion is killing it today.

[Martinus]

I wonder if this means my buddy who refused to marry his girlfriend until we have marriage equality will now have to go through with it 

Just like I wonder if the Texas pastor who threatened to set himself on fire if we have marriage equality will now have to go through with it. 

I hope there is a GoPro webcam.

[DontSayBanana]

I'm a social libertarian so yes, I don't think marriage is any of the state's fucking business.  But since it insists on sticking its nose into peoples' bedrooms, then gays must have equal rights too.

OTOH I have seen other libertarians say "The state shouldn't be in the marriage business, so gay marriage shouldn't be legalized since NO marriage should be regulated by law."

I have a dim view of these people because I suspect they are homophobes but too cowardly to admit it so they try to hide behind a 'technicality'.

I'm in the same boat.  To my mind, government-sanctioned marriage is an illegal government endorsement of religious ceremony.  OTOH, it's been so entrenched in government for so long and is so fundamental to many of our programs to ensure the welfare of our citizens that the lesser evil is to extend the benefit to everyone.  The "social libertarians" calling for scrapping marriage altogether don't seem to realize how closely they're skirting anarchism by essentially gutting every welfare program and taxation program (which would essentially defund all essential programs that aren't welfare-related).

[Martinus]

To my mind, government-sanctioned marriage is an illegal government endorsement of religious ceremony. 

To me, this view (which for some reason is touted around quite frequently) is one of the most idiotic positions one can take. There is much more to marriage than just a religious aspect and that has always been the case historically - if anything, I would say it is a perfectly socially useful legal contract that was endorsed and hijacked by religion at some point in history.

[Syt]

That's why I like the German/Austrian way: the legal part of marriage is registered in front of the state. If you want to have a religious ceremony of whatever your persuasion is that's fine, but it's not what will constitute a marriage before the law (so if you want to have a church wedding, you will have the registration office AND the mass in two events, often on the same day).

[Valmy]

hijacked by religion at some point in history.

The Ecloga issued by Leo III of course. Geez and you call yourself a lawyer.

[Valmy]

That's why I like the German/Austrian way: the legal part of marriage is registered in front of the state. If you want to have a religious ceremony of whatever your persuasion is that's fine, but it's not what will constitute a marriage before the law (so if you want to have a church wedding, you will have the registration office AND the mass in two events, often on the same day).

Isn't this the same way it works everywhere?

[PDH]

Marriage is a kinship ceremony that involves families.  It can, but doesn't have to, involve the sacred.  Once society got complex enough to have government taking interest in kinship, property, and such marriage entered the realm of governmental affairs.

[Syt]

That's why I like the German/Austrian way: the legal part of marriage is registered in front of the state. If you want to have a religious ceremony of whatever your persuasion is that's fine, but it's not what will constitute a marriage before the law (so if you want to have a church wedding, you will have the registration office AND the mass in two events, often on the same day).

Isn't this the same way it works everywhere?

?

[viper37]

You can imagine how my Facebook feed looks right now.

lots of people disapointed they lost a reason to fight over a meaningless issue?