News Same-sex marriage legal across US

[rude man]

I'm just curious why all the states even bothered to vote for same sex marriage when apparently the Supreme Court can in one vote make it legal everywhere?

Because the SC was unwilling to come up to speed with the American public until now. So progressive states, those who realized the value of compassion in dollar in addition to purely human terms, passed their own laws. So which explains why the northeast and the west coast have all the brains, technology and money while the bible belt types are living off taxpayer handouts earned by the progressives.

 

[StevieTNZ]

I can't believe that people object to gays being allowed to be married. For those of you that are against equality for all adult US Citizens, what harm does allowing gays to marry inflict on you? What freedoms and legal rights do you lose? And remember to leave religion out of this, this is not a religious issue and religion is not affected.

Exactly - listen to Maurice Williamson speech on the matter -- http://www.inthehouse.co.nz/video/13407

 

[lisab]

...even though the drafters of the portion of the Constitution they cite (written in 1868) did not intend this...

This can be said of *every* case that gets to the Supreme Court.

The easy cases - those directly and unambiguously addressed by laws and/or the founding fathers' writings - are handled by lesser courts.

 

[StevieTNZ]

This can be said of *every* case that gets to the Supreme Court.

The easy cases - those directly and unambiguously addressed by laws and/or the founding fathers' writings - are handled by lesser courts.

It is up to the Court to interpret the Constitution. They did so, and that's final. The Constitution wasn't created by a legislature, so there is no way to know what their intention was. That's why Courts refer to Hansard to try and determine what the legislature meant in enactments.

 

[Vanadium 50]

This can be said of *every* case that gets to the Supreme Court.

I disagree. Consider Wickard v. Filburn. The issue there was not an issue of legislative interpretation, it was an issue of definition: is a farmer growing wheat on his own land for his own use engaged in interstate commerce or not? (The ruling was that he was)

Also, the argument that this was what was intended in 1868 is an argument that could have been made in the decision, but it was not. Instead the argument was made that this it didn't matter that this was not what was intended. I would again encourage people to read the decision and the dissent.

 

[nsaspook]

For those of you who think it is a good idea to short-circuit the legislative process (when it's already moving in the direction you want), ask yourself what happens when five justices do the same thing in a matter you are opposed to.

I would urge people to read the decision and the dissent. I am happy with the outcome, but feel that we paid a much heavier price than we had to by reaching the outcome in this manner, rather than through the legislative process.

I don't think the decision was 'good' in that sense but believe it was necessary as the alternative of continued legal discrimination by law was worse. This decision was going to happen eventually and the 'heavy price' we pay today seems to me a bargain to not have years of uncertainty and discrimination until that happened.

 

[StevieTNZ]

Judges can make law -- it is known as common law. The legislature is entitled to override that common law by legislation.

From the email discussions I have had, statutory interpretation (such as interpreting the Constitution) is part of that common law.

 

[russ_watters]

While my opinion on the issue has flipped in the past 5 years or so - as, apparently, a lot of peoples - I don't think it is fair or tolerant of people to respond with vitriol to those who still hold the opposing view...largely because the mainstream view is so new. Even if one feels the opposite opinion is somehow "wrong", people should not forget that it was the mainstream view just a few years ago. Righteous indignation rings hollow when it is so fickle.

 

[jim hardy]

...ask yourself what happens when five justices do the same thing in a matter you are opposed to.

Hmmmm.

from page 2 of the ruling
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed

and page 5

(5)
There may be an initial inclination to await further legislation, litigation, and debate, but referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation in state and federal courts have led to an enhanced understanding of the issue. While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right.

Should they levelize 2nd amendment prohibition on ""infringement" among the states
what model do you think they'll choose? More like New York or Texas ?

 

[Tobias Funke]

While my opinion on the issue has flipped in the past 5 years or so - as, apparently, a lot of peoples - I don't think it is fair or tolerant of people to respond with vitriol to those who still hold the opposing view...largely because the mainstream view is so new. Even if one feels the opposite opinion is somehow "wrong", people should not forget that it was the mainstream view just a few years ago. Righteous indignation rings hollow when it is so fickle.

It's good that your opinion changed, but I think you're confusing who's fickle. There's been a significant percentage of people for decades who have supported same-sex marriage, and then there are the people who apparently just go with the "mainstream view." (Which is far from new.)

 

[StevieTNZ]

Louisiana has officially dug in its heels. According to the state attorney general's office:https://www.ag.state.la.us/Article.aspx?articleID=1037&catID=5

Once a decision has been handed down, shouldn't it take effective from that time, unless otherwise stated in the judgement?

 

[Evo]

Once a decision has been handed down, shouldn't it take effective from that time, unless otherwise stated in the judgement?

I read that it can take up to 25 days.

 

[jtbell]

Jindal explained that he is waiting for the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which had ruled in favor of the same-sex marriage ban, which was appealed to the Supreme Court, to issue its own ruling officially reversing its original ruling.

Bobby Jindal on 'Meet The Press': Louisiana doesn't have a choice on gay marriage ruling (New Orleans Times-Picayune)

South Carolina did something similar last fall when the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. They waited until the US District Court that covers South Carolina issued an official ruling, because that is where their case started originally.

I think it's just a last show of defiance / foot-dragging to keep his supporters happy. It's something of a Southern tradition.

 

[mheslep]

I think it's just a last show of defiance...

Hardly unusual. Post Heller, the decision in favor or individual guns rights, several jurisdictions http://blogs.rollcall.com/hill-blotter/dc-handgun-ruling-response-is-mixed-and-muddled/?pos=adpb until secondary courts finally got around to direct orders.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Yay :) The United States becomes the 21st country to legalise same sex marriage across the entire nation

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-ruling/index.html

I am from Canada, where same-sex marriage was legalized back in 2005 (in fact, Canada was the fourth country, and the first outside of Europe, to legalize same-sex marriage), and so I find it heartening that the US has joined the right side in history and moved closer to a more equitable, just society with the Supreme Court decision. And to think this decision coincided with Pride Week -- it's amazing and historic!

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Great news! On to the next issue.

 

[Borg]

I am from Canada, where same-sex marriage was legalized back in 2005 (in fact, Canada was the fourth country, and the first outside of Europe, to legalize same-sex marriage), and so I find it heartening that the US has joined the right side in history and moved closer to a more equitable, just society with the Supreme Court decision. And to think this decision coincided with Pride Week -- it's amazing and historic!

You might want to close the border for a couple of weeks.
http://41.media.tumblr.com/cffcb9aede314aa38e9a76c405725d57/tumblr_nqka4vxwCR1ryqi3lo1_500.png

 

[EM_Guy]

There are various reasons that people are for the legalization of so-called same sex marriage. And there are various reasons that people are against the legalization of so-called same sex marriage. If we are honest though, we would acknowledge that the Constitution is silent on the issue. What we have observed recently is that 5 people on the Supreme Court have no judicial restraint. They legislate from the bench. So, besides the fact that in my view, people are celebrating and institutionalizing a perversion, people are also celebrating the unconstitutional Rule by 5. Supreme Court justices are citizens, and as such, they have a right to vote - just like the rest of us citizens. But they should not be politicizing the court.

It is lamentable to me that so few of those who agree with the politics of the 5 also approve of the same 5 exercising no judicial restraint.

 

[russ_watters]

There are various reasons that people are for the legalization of so-called same sex marriage. And there are various reasons that people are against the legalization of so-called same sex marriage. If we are honest though, we would acknowledge that the Constitution is silent on the issue. What we have observed recently is that 5 people on the Supreme Court have no judicial restraint. They legislate from the bench. So, besides the fact that in my view, people are celebrating and institutionalizing a perversion, people are also celebrating the unconstitutional Rule by 5. Supreme Court justices are citizens, and as such, they have a right to vote - just like the rest of us citizens. But they should not be politicizing the court.

It is lamentable to me that so few of those who agree with the politics of the 5 also approve of the same 5 exercising no judicial restraint.

While I haven't read the decisions yet (so I don't know the exact logic used), I'm much more concerned about this issue as pertains to the Obamacare ruling. I can see a potential here for an Equal Protection Clause or Establishment Clause justification. The issue of enumerated powers is trumped by the issues of rights.

For Obamacare, the SCOTUS used the "we knew what you meant" justification: try using that to get out of (or enforce) a contract! People may think it is just expedient for the SCOTUS to fix the law, but that is a can of worms that imo should not have been opened.
[SCOTUS typo fixed]

 

[nsaspook]

I love America, happy 4th: http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2015/07/02/countrys-first-gay-divorce-firm-opens-in-philadelphia/

Lawyers!

 

[russ_watters]

Ahh, the City of Brotherly Love!