SCOTUS rules same sex marriage is constitutional right

[dycker1978]

People are flooding Twitter saying that since same-sex marriage is legal in the US, they are moving to Canada. Boy are they going to be surprised when they get there...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/its-legal-there#.kwmenzVn2

Maybe Saudi Arabia is a better destination.

God, if they think it's bad *here*, imagine what a living hell it's going to be when they go to Canada, realize that same-sex marriage is legal there, too, and that they'll also have to give up most of their firearms and put up with high-quality, socialized health care.  The horror!!!

HAHA maybe they can go to Mexica... oh wait...

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/06/23/mexico-legalizes-same-sex-marriage-marriage-not-for-procreation/

It seems that the USA is lagging in this area.

[Cathy]

This is not a particularly strong argument. For centuries, states discriminated on the basis of gender in deciding whether to licence a marriage. That lengthy history did not prevent the Court from ruling that it was unconstitutional. The constitutionality of the current marriage solemnisation laws in various states is not a simple issue in law.

States did this, and it was unconstitutional. Churches are NOT states.

As I already explained, in at least some states, church officials are acting as officials of the state when they solemnise marriages. That was addressed in my first very first post on this issue, which I prefaced with "[t]o the extent that church officials are blessed with the power of the state".

It is not a simple issue whether it is constitutional for these state officials to refuse to solemise certain marriages. As Scalia J pointed out at oral argument, this is a novel issue and it has never been decided. You may believe it is very simple, but legally it is not.

Let's be clear about one thing. Today's decision does not decide whether religious ministers acting as officials of the state are constitutionally entitled to refuse to exercise their state-granted function to solemise marriages on the basis of religious beliefs that, if enforced by the state, would violate substantive due process. That is an open question and the answer is not straightforward. The answer could go either way.

[Midwest]

Point the second: If Christians want tolerance, perhaps they should try giving some out once in a while.

Christians are extremely tolerant compared to other religions.  You'll notice that the typical Christian doesn't burn down Temples and Mosques.  Christians don't round up people of other religions and stone them to death in the street.  I understand that you apparently disagree with certain aspects of certain Christian denominations' beliefs, but let's be honest here.

I realize that many Christians are very tolerant - most in fact are wonderful people. People in general are wonderful people, regardless of faith. If you yourself feel that you are tolerant then I wont doubt it.

Since you brought it up however, let's look at some of the atrocities committed in history by the tolerant Christians. I'm sure we could come up with an equally long list of atrocities for all religions.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm

Add to the list the fact that some Christians refuse to allow any two people to marry based on their sexual orientation because their beliefs don't allow it. That's a textbook definition of intolerance. I'm very happy to be on the side of fairness, love, and equality.

The 20th century list you provided  for Christians is pretty short compared to ISIS.  Also, the broad community of Christians tend to condemn those sort of acts (as do non-Christians for the most part).

I could care less if homosexuals want to get married.  That being said, if a minister has a religious objection to marrying someone, that should be respected.  My own parents had an issue because my father was previously divorced. 

Tolerance of opposing beliefs is a 2 way street.  I don't belittle others for their different beliefs, other religions or non-religions should do the same.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Plus there's that whole Library of Alexandria burning by Christians, arguably the single greatest setback to human progress ever perpetrated by anyone.  Thanks Christians!

Wait, what? I was of the understanding that the Library at Alexandria suffered a number of destructive fires on many different occasions over hundreds of years, not a single catastrophic event that destroyed everything. Wikipedia seems to agree with me. They do note that Pope/Emperor Theodosius was responsible for one of the events.

In any case, I won't argue that Christianity has culpable for a number of crimes against intellectual progress over the last couple of centuries. Heliocentrism, evolution, the Big Bang, old Earth geology, and even (bizarrely) global warming have a powerful enemy. We can probably remove heliocentrism from the list at this point, but the rest? Goddamn.

[Sparafusile]

Point the second: If Christians want tolerance, perhaps they should try giving some out once in a while.

Christians are extremely tolerant compared to other religions.  You'll notice that the typical Christian doesn't burn down Temples and Mosques.  Christians don't round up people of other religions and stone them to death in the street.  I understand that you apparently disagree with certain aspects of certain Christian denominations' beliefs, but let's be honest here.

I realize that many Christians are very tolerant - most in fact are wonderful people. People in general are wonderful people, regardless of faith. If you yourself feel that you are tolerant then I wont doubt it.

Since you brought it up however, let's look at some of the atrocities committed in history by the tolerant Christians. I'm sure we could come up with an equally long list of atrocities for all religions.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm

Add to the list the fact that some Christians refuse to allow any two people to marry based on their sexual orientation because their beliefs don't allow it. That's a textbook definition of intolerance. I'm very happy to be on the side of fairness, love, and equality.

The 20th century list you provided  for Christians is pretty short compared to ISIS.  Also, Christians tend to condemn those sort of acts (as do non-Christians for the most part).

I could care less if homosexuals want to get married.  That being said, if a minister has a religious objection to marrying someone, that should be respected.  My own parents had an issue because my father was previously divorced.  Tolerance of opposing beliefs is a 2 way street.

You REALLY believe that all Muslims are perfectly fine with what ISIS is doing? When was the last time you publicly condemned The Army of God, Eastern Lightning, The Lord's Resistance Army, The National Liberation Front of Tripura, etc etc etc?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Contemporary

Things I didn't see listed: the KKK, abortion clinic violence and murders, deliberately misinforming children in school.

ISIS was created by the United States - a primarily Christian nation - by creating a war through lies and misinformation. That's a really bad example to use if you want to prove how wonderful Christians are.

Tolerance is a 2 way street, sure, but I've never heard atheists demand that Christians stop getting married. When religious people use the argument that everybody else has to respect their beliefs, what they really are saying is "you have to respect my right to be intolerant" which is ridiculous. A ridiculousness that was thankfully overcome by the supreme court today.

[former player]

People are flooding Twitter saying that since same-sex marriage is legal in the US, they are moving to Canada. Boy are they going to be surprised when they get there...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/its-legal-there#.kwmenzVn2

Maybe Saudi Arabia is a better destination.

God, if they think it's bad *here*, imagine what a living hell it's going to be when they go to Canada, realize that same-sex marriage is legal there, too, and that they'll also have to give up most of their firearms and put up with high-quality, socialized health care.  The horror!!!

HAHA maybe they can go to Mexica... oh wait...

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/06/23/mexico-legalizes-same-sex-marriage-marriage-not-for-procreation/

It seems that the USA is lagging in this area.

They're not going to be happy back in the UK either -

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/30/contents/enacted

They'd be OK in the Republic of Ireland- but only until Autumn this year.

[sol]

Tolerance of opposing beliefs is a 2 way street.  I don't belittle others for their different beliefs, other religions or non-religions should do the same.

The difference here is that only one side is actively trying to prohibit the other side from enjoying the same rights that they do.

Your argument is like saying that releasing Japanese Americans from the internment camps violated the rights of white Americans.  It's totally NOT a two way street, and that's the very problem we're trying to address.

[Midwest]

I realize that many Christians are very tolerant - most in fact are wonderful people. People in general are wonderful people, regardless of faith. If you yourself feel that you are tolerant then I wont doubt it.

Since you brought it up however, let's look at some of the atrocities committed in history by the tolerant Christians. I'm sure we could come up with an equally long list of atrocities for all religions.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm

Add to the list the fact that some Christians refuse to allow any two people to marry based on their sexual orientation because their beliefs don't allow it. That's a textbook definition of intolerance. I'm very happy to be on the side of fairness, love, and equality.

The 20th century list you provided  for Christians is pretty short compared to ISIS.  Also, Christians tend to condemn those sort of acts (as do non-Christians for the most part).

I could care less if homosexuals want to get married.  That being said, if a minister has a religious objection to marrying someone, that should be respected.  My own parents had an issue because my father was previously divorced.  Tolerance of opposing beliefs is a 2 way street.

You REALLY believe that all Muslims are perfectly fine with what ISIS is doing? When was the last time you publicly condemned The Army of God, Eastern Lightning, The Lord's Resistance Army, The National Liberation Front of Tripura, etc etc etc?

I never said or inferred they did.  In fact I went as far as to say, most non-Christians (Muslims are included in that) condemn them as well.

ISIS was created by the United States - a primarily Christian nation - by creating a war through lies and misinformation. That's a really bad example to use if you want to prove how wonderful Christians are.

The US is not, in the name of Christianity, killing Muslims.  ISIS, on the other hand, is. 

Blaming ISIS on the US is a stretch.  Blaming ISIS on Christianity is ridiculous.

[Midwest]

Tolerance of opposing beliefs is a 2 way street.  I don't belittle others for their different beliefs, other religions or non-religions should do the same.

The difference here is that only one side is actively trying to prohibit the other side from enjoying the same rights that they do.

Sol - I'm not arguing against gay marriage or the fact that Christians are sometimes intolerant.  Others are intolerant as well, two wrongs don't make a right

[forummm]

People are flooding Twitter saying that since same-sex marriage is legal in the US, they are moving to Canada. Boy are they going to be surprised when they get there...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/its-legal-there#.kwmenzVn2

Maybe Saudi Arabia is a better destination.

God, if they think it's bad *here*, imagine what a living hell it's going to be when they go to Canada, realize that same-sex marriage is legal there, too, and that they'll also have to give up most of their firearms and put up with high-quality, socialized health care.  The horror!!!

And Canada doesn't even go off starting huge wars or bombing random countries??? What is this place?

[Sparafusile]

You REALLY believe that all Muslims are perfectly fine with what ISIS is doing? When was the last time you publicly condemned The Army of God, Eastern Lightning, The Lord's Resistance Army, The National Liberation Front of Tripura, etc etc etc?

I never said or inferred they did.  In fact I went as far as to say, most non-Christians (Muslims are included in that) condemn them as well.

Reading comprehension failure on my part. My apologies.

ISIS was created by the United States - a primarily Christian nation - by creating a war through lies and misinformation. That's a really bad example to use if you want to prove how wonderful Christians are.

The US is not, in the name of Christianity, killing Muslims.  ISIS, on the other hand, is. 

Blaming ISIS on the US is a stretch.  Blaming ISIS on Christianity is ridiculous.

I believe we are both getting way off topic here. If you'd like to continue a civil discussion, let us take this to a new thread. Otherwise, thank you for your point of view.

[CanuckExpat]

[trailrated]

So I am a Republican who is totally for gay marriage, and I applaud the decision of the court.

I am wondering where this moves the debate (if there even can be one) in the future or at the very least for this coming election cycle amongst the Republican contenders.

Is there a point where they do not have to cater to the hard core religious right on this issue because it is already settled, or am I just being naive and hopeful.

Just found the answer to my question, it is looking half/half, but I am happy to see there are more Republicans that support gay marriage. (some are quoted in the article, link at the bottom)

Lindsey Graham (S.C.) quickly pledged not to pursue “a divisive effort that would be doomed to fail” against the Supreme Court’s decision, but rather to commit himself “to ensuring the protection of religious liberties of all Americans.” Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said that “good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side.” Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) said he disagreed with the decision but recognized that the country had to “abide by the law.”

So for the time being... I know who is not getting my vote.

Gov. Scott Walker (Wis.) called for an amendment to the Constitution to “reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage.” Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee called the ruling “judicial tyranny.” And Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal offered, well, this:

Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that.
This decision will pave the way for an all-out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision. This ruling must not be used as pretext by Washington to erode our right to religious liberty.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/26/gop-gay-marriage_n_7673344.html

[Rural]

Yay Supremes. Oh, and yay Constitution.

[GuitarStv]

Actually, the curriculum in Ontario has been updated this year to explain gay sex in classes . . . soo . . . mebbe your chart is incorrect.

[Tyson]

Did anyone really think they would rule otherwise?

I'm kind of surprised Roberts is the writer of the dissenting opinion. I really figured that he wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of history with this one.  Of course, in history he will get credit for the judgement because "his" court made the decision.

But yes, some of this court's decisions have been very questionable- so I thought that the dissenting opinion (which was basically "we aren't making a judgement about gay marriage, we are judging whether we can tell states how to define marriage") had a very good chance of being the majority opinion.

Well, I think that people at the Federal level are starting to realize "Hey, the states HAD their chance and they cocked it up.  So now we have to clean up their mess".  I expect more and more trending toward these types of decisions.  A good thing, IMO.

[Mr Dorothy Dollar]

Did anyone really think they would rule otherwise?

I'm kind of surprised Roberts is the writer of the dissenting opinion. I really figured that he wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of history with this one.  Of course, in history he will get credit for the judgement because "his" court made the decision.

But yes, some of this court's decisions have been very questionable- so I thought that the dissenting opinion (which was basically "we aren't making a judgement about gay marriage, we are judging whether we can tell states how to define marriage") had a very good chance of being the majority opinion.

Well, I think that people at the Federal level are starting to realize "Hey, the states HAD their chance and they cocked it up.  So now we have to clean up their mess".  I expect more and more trending toward these types of decisions.  A good thing, IMO.

As long as Alabama and Mississippi exist I support more federal laws trumping state laws.

[trailrated]

Did anyone really think they would rule otherwise?

I'm kind of surprised Roberts is the writer of the dissenting opinion. I really figured that he wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of history with this one.  Of course, in history he will get credit for the judgement because "his" court made the decision.

Please forgive the ignorance but can you give me the cliff notes version of how/why Roberts is the Chief Justice on the Supreme Court. Is it voted on amongst justices, is it just luck based on when you were appointed, I can't imagine it is based on seniority cause I know other justices have been there longer.

[regulator]

So now gay people can be as miserable as straight married people in all states.  I predict a booming divorce lawyer trade within a year.

It occurs to me to wonder: how long before bigamists/polygamists demand their day in Supreme Court?  I hear bitter suggestions that NAMBLA types will be pleading their case as well soon, but they do not have all parties involved as freely consenting adults.  Bigamists/polygamists presumably do.

[Tyson]

So now gay people can be as miserable as straight married people in all states.  I predict a booming divorce lawyer trade within a year.

It occurs to me to wonder: how long before bigamists/polygamists demand their day in Supreme Court?  I hear bitter suggestions that NAMBLA types will be pleading their case as well soon, but they do not have all parties involved as freely consenting adults.  Bigamists/polygamists presumably do.

If SCOTUS had moved against Gay Marriage on religious infringement grounds, then I think they would have opened themselves up a lot more to the bigamist/polygamist, since those have traditionally been religiously sanctioned.

[regulator]

So now gay people can be as miserable as straight married people in all states.  I predict a booming divorce lawyer trade within a year.

It occurs to me to wonder: how long before bigamists/polygamists demand their day in Supreme Court?  I hear bitter suggestions that NAMBLA types will be pleading their case as well soon, but they do not have all parties involved as freely consenting adults.  Bigamists/polygamists presumably do.

If SCOTUS had moved against Gay Marriage on religious infringement grounds, then I think they would have opened themselves up a lot more to the bigamist/polygamist, since those have traditionally been religiously sanctioned.

Equal rights was the basis of the ruling as I crudely understand it.  So why should the State turn away more than two parties who wish to be in the same marriage?  Why should states refuse to allow first cousins to marry?  Does it not infringe upon those people's rights?

[Gin1984]

So now gay people can be as miserable as straight married people in all states.  I predict a booming divorce lawyer trade within a year.

It occurs to me to wonder: how long before bigamists/polygamists demand their day in Supreme Court?  I hear bitter suggestions that NAMBLA types will be pleading their case as well soon, but they do not have all parties involved as freely consenting adults.  Bigamists/polygamists presumably do.

If SCOTUS had moved against Gay Marriage on religious infringement grounds, then I think they would have opened themselves up a lot more to the bigamist/polygamist, since those have traditionally been religiously sanctioned.

Equal rights was the basis of the ruling as I crudely understand it.  So why should the State turn away more than two parties who wish to be in the same marriage?  Why should states refuse to allow first cousins to marry? Does it not infringe upon those people's rights?

Actually some states do allow first cousins to get married, some only if one member of the couple is infertile.  And there are benefits to society to keep cousins from breeding.

[sol]

Please forgive the ignorance but can you give me the cliff notes version of how/why Roberts is the Chief Justice on the Supreme Court. Is it voted on amongst justices, is it just luck based on when you were appointed, I can't imagine it is based on seniority cause I know other justices have been there longer.

Basically it's just luck based on when you were appointed. 

Technically the appointing President picks, but in practice this usually means that when the current CJ retirees, the next person appointed becomes the new CJ.

[Glenstache]

Did anyone really think they would rule otherwise?

I'm kind of surprised Roberts is the writer of the dissenting opinion. I really figured that he wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of history with this one.  Of course, in history he will get credit for the judgement because "his" court made the decision.

Please forgive the ignorance but can you give me the cliff notes version of how/why Roberts is the Chief Justice on the Supreme Court. Is it voted on amongst justices, is it just luck based on when you were appointed, I can't imagine it is based on seniority cause I know other justices have been there longer.

GW Bush nominated him to the Chief Justice position. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/05/roberts.nomination/

[regulator]

So now gay people can be as miserable as straight married people in all states.  I predict a booming divorce lawyer trade within a year.

It occurs to me to wonder: how long before bigamists/polygamists demand their day in Supreme Court?  I hear bitter suggestions that NAMBLA types will be pleading their case as well soon, but they do not have all parties involved as freely consenting adults.  Bigamists/polygamists presumably do.

If SCOTUS had moved against Gay Marriage on religious infringement grounds, then I think they would have opened themselves up a lot more to the bigamist/polygamist, since those have traditionally been religiously sanctioned.

Equal rights was the basis of the ruling as I crudely understand it.  So why should the State turn away more than two parties who wish to be in the same marriage?  Why should states refuse to allow first cousins to marry? Does it not infringe upon those people's rights?

Actually some states do allow first cousins to get married, some only if one member of the couple is infertile.  And there are benefits to society to keep cousins from breeding.

When I got my marriage license some years ago I had to be able to truthfully state that I was not intoxicated, syphilitic or about to marry someone closer than my third cousin in order to receive said license.  I imagine that quite a number of states have similar requirements.

I am sure there are plenty of people who would still today argue that society would benefit by keeping same sex couples from marrying, so I can't say I find that argument convincing.

[Tyson]

I realize that many Christians are very tolerant - most in fact are wonderful people. People in general are wonderful people, regardless of faith. If you yourself feel that you are tolerant then I wont doubt it.

Since you brought it up however, let's look at some of the atrocities committed in history by the tolerant Christians. I'm sure we could come up with an equally long list of atrocities for all religions.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm

Add to the list the fact that some Christians refuse to allow any two people to marry based on their sexual orientation because their beliefs don't allow it. That's a textbook definition of intolerance. I'm very happy to be on the side of fairness, love, and equality.

The 20th century list you provided  for Christians is pretty short compared to ISIS.  Also, Christians tend to condemn those sort of acts (as do non-Christians for the most part).

I could care less if homosexuals want to get married.  That being said, if a minister has a religious objection to marrying someone, that should be respected.  My own parents had an issue because my father was previously divorced.  Tolerance of opposing beliefs is a 2 way street.

You REALLY believe that all Muslims are perfectly fine with what ISIS is doing? When was the last time you publicly condemned The Army of God, Eastern Lightning, The Lord's Resistance Army, The National Liberation Front of Tripura, etc etc etc?

I never said or inferred they did.  In fact I went as far as to say, most non-Christians (Muslims are included in that) condemn them as well.

ISIS was created by the United States - a primarily Christian nation - by creating a war through lies and misinformation. That's a really bad example to use if you want to prove how wonderful Christians are.

The US is not, in the name of Christianity, killing Muslims.  ISIS, on the other hand, is. 

Blaming ISIS on the US is a stretch.  Blaming ISIS on Christianity is ridiculous.

The US is more than 80% Christian AND a democracy.  So the USA is in fact a "Christian Nation".  And when we go bombing the Middle East, it is in fact an act of Christian aggression.  Or, do you think that Iraq and Afghanistan are thinking to themselves "Why are our Muslim brothers in the USA bombing us?".  No, they are thinking "Why are the western Christians bombing us".  So, ipso facto, we DID create ISIS. 

Of course as a None's, I wash my hands of the whole stinking mess.

[Tyson]

So now gay people can be as miserable as straight married people in all states.  I predict a booming divorce lawyer trade within a year.

It occurs to me to wonder: how long before bigamists/polygamists demand their day in Supreme Court?  I hear bitter suggestions that NAMBLA types will be pleading their case as well soon, but they do not have all parties involved as freely consenting adults.  Bigamists/polygamists presumably do.

Equal rights was the basis of the ruling as I crudely understand it.  So why should the State turn away more than two parties who wish to be in the same marriage?  Why should states refuse to allow first cousins to marry?  Does it not infringe upon those people's rights?

You could substitute "bi-racial" marriage for "gay marriage" and come up with the same argument, you know.

[Gin1984]

So now gay people can be as miserable as straight married people in all states.  I predict a booming divorce lawyer trade within a year.

It occurs to me to wonder: how long before bigamists/polygamists demand their day in Supreme Court?  I hear bitter suggestions that NAMBLA types will be pleading their case as well soon, but they do not have all parties involved as freely consenting adults.  Bigamists/polygamists presumably do.

If SCOTUS had moved against Gay Marriage on religious infringement grounds, then I think they would have opened themselves up a lot more to the bigamist/polygamist, since those have traditionally been religiously sanctioned.

Equal rights was the basis of the ruling as I crudely understand it.  So why should the State turn away more than two parties who wish to be in the same marriage?  Why should states refuse to allow first cousins to marry? Does it not infringe upon those people's rights?

Actually some states do allow first cousins to get married, some only if one member of the couple is infertile.  And there are benefits to society to keep cousins from breeding.

When I got my marriage license some years ago I had to be able to truthfully state that I was not intoxicated, syphilitic or about to marry someone closer than my third cousin in order to receive said license.  I imagine that quite a number of states have similar requirements.

I am sure there are plenty of people who would still today argue that society would benefit by keeping same sex couples from marrying, so I can't say I find that argument convincing.

Name one, that does not come from a religion.

[regulator]

So now gay people can be as miserable as straight married people in all states.  I predict a booming divorce lawyer trade within a year.

It occurs to me to wonder: how long before bigamists/polygamists demand their day in Supreme Court?  I hear bitter suggestions that NAMBLA types will be pleading their case as well soon, but they do not have all parties involved as freely consenting adults.  Bigamists/polygamists presumably do.

If SCOTUS had moved against Gay Marriage on religious infringement grounds, then I think they would have opened themselves up a lot more to the bigamist/polygamist, since those have traditionally been religiously sanctioned.

Equal rights was the basis of the ruling as I crudely understand it.  So why should the State turn away more than two parties who wish to be in the same marriage?  Why should states refuse to allow first cousins to marry? Does it not infringe upon those people's rights?

Actually some states do allow first cousins to get married, some only if one member of the couple is infertile.  And there are benefits to society to keep cousins from breeding.

When I got my marriage license some years ago I had to be able to truthfully state that I was not intoxicated, syphilitic or about to marry someone closer than my third cousin in order to receive said license.  I imagine that quite a number of states have similar requirements.

I am sure there are plenty of people who would still today argue that society would benefit by keeping same sex couples from marrying, so I can't say I find that argument convincing.

Name one, that does not come from a religion.

They will not have the same ability to bring more new, little taxpayers into the world, for one.

[Tyson]

So now gay people can be as miserable as straight married people in all states.  I predict a booming divorce lawyer trade within a year.

It occurs to me to wonder: how long before bigamists/polygamists demand their day in Supreme Court?  I hear bitter suggestions that NAMBLA types will be pleading their case as well soon, but they do not have all parties involved as freely consenting adults.  Bigamists/polygamists presumably do.

If SCOTUS had moved against Gay Marriage on religious infringement grounds, then I think they would have opened themselves up a lot more to the bigamist/polygamist, since those have traditionally been religiously sanctioned.

Equal rights was the basis of the ruling as I crudely understand it.  So why should the State turn away more than two parties who wish to be in the same marriage?  Why should states refuse to allow first cousins to marry? Does it not infringe upon those people's rights?

Actually some states do allow first cousins to get married, some only if one member of the couple is infertile.  And there are benefits to society to keep cousins from breeding.

When I got my marriage license some years ago I had to be able to truthfully state that I was not intoxicated, syphilitic or about to marry someone closer than my third cousin in order to receive said license.  I imagine that quite a number of states have similar requirements.

I am sure there are plenty of people who would still today argue that society would benefit by keeping same sex couples from marrying, so I can't say I find that argument convincing.

Name one, that does not come from a religion.

They will not have the same ability to bring more new, little taxpayers into the world, for one.

But they will in fact be able to provide a good home though adoption to children that might otherwise end up orphanages, in broken homes, or on the street.  So fewer juvenile delinquents, more happy homes, and more teaching kids to grow up to be responsible adults and contributing members of society.  So win-win-win-win-win.

[Cressida]

The US is more than 80% Christian AND a democracy.  So the USA is in fact a "Christian Nation".  And when we go bombing the Middle East, it is in fact an act of Christian aggression.  Or, do you think that Iraq and Afghanistan are thinking to themselves "Why are our Muslim brothers in the USA bombing us?".  No, they are thinking "Why are the western Christians bombing us".  So, ipso facto, we DID create ISIS. 

Of course as a None's, I wash my hands of the whole stinking mess.

71% and falling fast, actually. http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

[Gin1984]

So now gay people can be as miserable as straight married people in all states.  I predict a booming divorce lawyer trade within a year.

It occurs to me to wonder: how long before bigamists/polygamists demand their day in Supreme Court?  I hear bitter suggestions that NAMBLA types will be pleading their case as well soon, but they do not have all parties involved as freely consenting adults.  Bigamists/polygamists presumably do.

If SCOTUS had moved against Gay Marriage on religious infringement grounds, then I think they would have opened themselves up a lot more to the bigamist/polygamist, since those have traditionally been religiously sanctioned.

Equal rights was the basis of the ruling as I crudely understand it.  So why should the State turn away more than two parties who wish to be in the same marriage?  Why should states refuse to allow first cousins to marry? Does it not infringe upon those people's rights?

Actually some states do allow first cousins to get married, some only if one member of the couple is infertile.  And there are benefits to society to keep cousins from breeding.

When I got my marriage license some years ago I had to be able to truthfully state that I was not intoxicated, syphilitic or about to marry someone closer than my third cousin in order to receive said license.  I imagine that quite a number of states have similar requirements.

I am sure there are plenty of people who would still today argue that society would benefit by keeping same sex couples from marrying, so I can't say I find that argument convincing.

Name one, that does not come from a religion.

They will not have the same ability to bring more new, little taxpayers into the world, for one.

You don't have to be fertile to get married.  As I stated, some states require you to infertile to get married.  That is not a harm to society.

[regulator]

So now gay people can be as miserable as straight married people in all states.  I predict a booming divorce lawyer trade within a year.

It occurs to me to wonder: how long before bigamists/polygamists demand their day in Supreme Court?  I hear bitter suggestions that NAMBLA types will be pleading their case as well soon, but they do not have all parties involved as freely consenting adults.  Bigamists/polygamists presumably do.

If SCOTUS had moved against Gay Marriage on religious infringement grounds, then I think they would have opened themselves up a lot more to the bigamist/polygamist, since those have traditionally been religiously sanctioned.

Equal rights was the basis of the ruling as I crudely understand it.  So why should the State turn away more than two parties who wish to be in the same marriage?  Why should states refuse to allow first cousins to marry? Does it not infringe upon those people's rights?

Actually some states do allow first cousins to get married, some only if one member of the couple is infertile.  And there are benefits to society to keep cousins from breeding.

When I got my marriage license some years ago I had to be able to truthfully state that I was not intoxicated, syphilitic or about to marry someone closer than my third cousin in order to receive said license.  I imagine that quite a number of states have similar requirements.

I am sure there are plenty of people who would still today argue that society would benefit by keeping same sex couples from marrying, so I can't say I find that argument convincing.

Name one, that does not come from a religion.

They will not have the same ability to bring more new, little taxpayers into the world, for one.

You don't have to be fertile to get married.  As I stated, some states require you to infertile to get married.  That is not a harm to society.

When one looks at the tax code, it is almost impossible not to conclude that the gubmint wants you to have as many little taxpayers as possible.

[Cathy]

The procreation argument is patently without merit. I was actually surprised that it was alluded to in the dissenting opinions of Roberts CJ and Thomas and Alito JJ, even though none of them relied on it as a part of their core legal reasoning. The separate opinion of Scalia J mercifully did not mention that argument, but he did join in the other dissenting opinions.

There hasn't been much litigation of plural relationships in recent years. In Reference re: Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada, 2011 BCSC 1588, the BC Supreme Court upheld various criminal restrictions on certain plural relationships and did not recognise any right to participate in them. The decision was not appealed. I express no view on the merits of the decision. It is just provided for informational purposes.

[Bardo]

This whole complaint that equal marriage rights somehow impinges on religious freedom just slays me.  In what possible way is anyone's religious freedom impeded by granting others rights?  Would the argument hold that if I decided that my religion told me that blacks were inferior, and therefore must be treated as second-class citizens?  How can freedom for one person take away another's freedom?  Unless these "religious freedom" cranks are somehow being forced to marry within their sex their argument is just so bogus.

[regulator]

This whole complaint that equal marriage rights somehow impinges on religious freedom just slays me.  In what possible way is anyone's religious freedom impeded by granting others rights?  Would the argument hold that if I decided that my religion told me that blacks were inferior, and therefore must be treated as second-class citizens?  How can freedom for one person take away another's freedom?  Unless these "religious freedom" cranks are somehow being forced to marry within their sex their argument is just so bogus.

I think that it is mostly a way to say that they don't approve of same sex marriage.  That said, given numerous cases where people (mostly bakers, for whatever reason) are forced to supply stuff for same sex marriages or else be sued/ruined even though it goes against their deeply held beliefs, I can see at least some of the argument.

[forummm]

Maybe conservatives really are color-blind.

[Tyson]

This whole complaint that equal marriage rights somehow impinges on religious freedom just slays me.  In what possible way is anyone's religious freedom impeded by granting others rights?  Would the argument hold that if I decided that my religion told me that blacks were inferior, and therefore must be treated as second-class citizens?  How can freedom for one person take away another's freedom?  Unless these "religious freedom" cranks are somehow being forced to marry within their sex their argument is just so bogus.

I think that it is mostly a way to say that they don't approve of same sex marriage.  That said, given numerous cases where people (mostly bakers, for whatever reason) are forced to supply stuff for same sex marriages or else be sued/ruined even though it goes against their deeply held beliefs, I can see at least some of the argument.

Again, substitute "black" for "same sex" and see if your argument still holds. 

[forummm]

Did anyone really think they would rule otherwise?

I'm kind of surprised Roberts is the writer of the dissenting opinion. I really figured that he wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of history with this one.  Of course, in history he will get credit for the judgement because "his" court made the decision.

Please forgive the ignorance but can you give me the cliff notes version of how/why Roberts is the Chief Justice on the Supreme Court. Is it voted on amongst justices, is it just luck based on when you were appointed, I can't imagine it is based on seniority cause I know other justices have been there longer.

GW Bush nominated him to the Chief Justice position. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/05/roberts.nomination/

Sometimes when the Chief Justice dies or retires, the President promotes one of the sitting justices and nominates a new one. Bush was wanting to promote O'Connor but she decided not to stay on the Court.

[forummm]

So now gay people can be as miserable as straight married people in all states.  I predict a booming divorce lawyer trade within a year.

It occurs to me to wonder: how long before bigamists/polygamists demand their day in Supreme Court?  I hear bitter suggestions that NAMBLA types will be pleading their case as well soon, but they do not have all parties involved as freely consenting adults.  Bigamists/polygamists presumably do.

If SCOTUS had moved against Gay Marriage on religious infringement grounds, then I think they would have opened themselves up a lot more to the bigamist/polygamist, since those have traditionally been religiously sanctioned.

Equal rights was the basis of the ruling as I crudely understand it.  So why should the State turn away more than two parties who wish to be in the same marriage?  Why should states refuse to allow first cousins to marry? Does it not infringe upon those people's rights?

Actually some states do allow first cousins to get married, some only if one member of the couple is infertile.  And there are benefits to society to keep cousins from breeding.

When I got my marriage license some years ago I had to be able to truthfully state that I was not intoxicated, syphilitic or about to marry someone closer than my third cousin in order to receive said license.  I imagine that quite a number of states have similar requirements.

I am sure there are plenty of people who would still today argue that society would benefit by keeping same sex couples from marrying, so I can't say I find that argument convincing.

Name one, that does not come from a religion.

They will not have the same ability to bring more new, little taxpayers into the world, for one.

But they will in fact be able to provide a good home though adoption to children that might otherwise end up orphanages, in broken homes, or on the street.  So fewer juvenile delinquents, more happy homes, and more teaching kids to grow up to be responsible adults and contributing members of society.  So win-win-win-win-win.

And I know quite a lot of gay people with kids of their own.

[regulator]

This whole complaint that equal marriage rights somehow impinges on religious freedom just slays me.  In what possible way is anyone's religious freedom impeded by granting others rights?  Would the argument hold that if I decided that my religion told me that blacks were inferior, and therefore must be treated as second-class citizens?  How can freedom for one person take away another's freedom?  Unless these "religious freedom" cranks are somehow being forced to marry within their sex their argument is just so bogus.

I think that it is mostly a way to say that they don't approve of same sex marriage.  That said, given numerous cases where people (mostly bakers, for whatever reason) are forced to supply stuff for same sex marriages or else be sued/ruined even though it goes against their deeply held beliefs, I can see at least some of the argument.

Again, substitute "black" for "same sex" and see if your argument still holds.

This is not about race, so leave it be with the straw person.

I personally don't care who wishes to marry whom.  If nothing else, it will give the social scientists endless fodder for studying things like divorce rates, comparisons to conventional marriages on things like health, income, etc.  But  would have a much easier time living and let live if I felt like the same courtesy were extended all around.

[Gin1984]

This whole complaint that equal marriage rights somehow impinges on religious freedom just slays me.  In what possible way is anyone's religious freedom impeded by granting others rights?  Would the argument hold that if I decided that my religion told me that blacks were inferior, and therefore must be treated as second-class citizens?  How can freedom for one person take away another's freedom?  Unless these "religious freedom" cranks are somehow being forced to marry within their sex their argument is just so bogus.

I think that it is mostly a way to say that they don't approve of same sex marriage.  That said, given numerous cases where people (mostly bakers, for whatever reason) are forced to supply stuff for same sex marriages or else be sued/ruined even though it goes against their deeply held beliefs, I can see at least some of the argument.

If you want to be a bigot, that sometimes comes with backlash.  I won't shop at places owned by bigots.  That has nothing to do with your religion, it has to do with you being a bigot.  Just because you want to hide behind your religion as an excuse does not change the fact, bigot.

[Tyson]

This whole complaint that equal marriage rights somehow impinges on religious freedom just slays me.  In what possible way is anyone's religious freedom impeded by granting others rights?  Would the argument hold that if I decided that my religion told me that blacks were inferior, and therefore must be treated as second-class citizens?  How can freedom for one person take away another's freedom?  Unless these "religious freedom" cranks are somehow being forced to marry within their sex their argument is just so bogus.

I think that it is mostly a way to say that they don't approve of same sex marriage.  That said, given numerous cases where people (mostly bakers, for whatever reason) are forced to supply stuff for same sex marriages or else be sued/ruined even though it goes against their deeply held beliefs, I can see at least some of the argument.

Again, substitute "black" for "same sex" and see if your argument still holds.

This is not about race, so leave it be with the straw person.

I personally don't care who wishes to marry whom.  If nothing else, it will give the social scientists endless fodder for studying things like divorce rates, comparisons to conventional marriages on things like health, income, etc.  But  would have a much easier time living and let live if I felt like the same courtesy were extended all around.

It's about equal rights.  Civil Rights, Gay Rights.  You can pretend that they are not equivalent, but they are.

[sol]

Just because you want to hide behind your religion as an excuse does not change the fact, bigot.

Shut up, you heathen.  Slavery is IN THE BIBLE.  God clearly sanctions my bigotry, are you saying God is wrong? 

[Gin1984]

This whole complaint that equal marriage rights somehow impinges on religious freedom just slays me.  In what possible way is anyone's religious freedom impeded by granting others rights?  Would the argument hold that if I decided that my religion told me that blacks were inferior, and therefore must be treated as second-class citizens?  How can freedom for one person take away another's freedom?  Unless these "religious freedom" cranks are somehow being forced to marry within their sex their argument is just so bogus.

I think that it is mostly a way to say that they don't approve of same sex marriage.  That said, given numerous cases where people (mostly bakers, for whatever reason) are forced to supply stuff for same sex marriages or else be sued/ruined even though it goes against their deeply held beliefs, I can see at least some of the argument.

Again, substitute "black" for "same sex" and see if your argument still holds.

This is not about race, so leave it be with the straw person.

I personally don't care who wishes to marry whom.  If nothing else, it will give the social scientists endless fodder for studying things like divorce rates, comparisons to conventional marriages on things like health, income, etc.  But  would have a much easier time living and let live if I felt like the same courtesy were extended all around.

Actually race is a pretty good equivalent.  Both are caused by genetics influenced by environment (some of that being within the womb as the environment) and have no actual negative or positive features based on those genetics. 

[Sparafusile]

What I find hilarious is that many religious people will pick and choose which parts of their respective doctrines to follow depending on their own desires. For example, many a Christian that was interviewed about gay marriage were, unsurprisingly, against it. When asked how many of them had been divorced, many of them had been! Both things are banned in the bible, but only one is followed.

• eating shell fish
• getting tattooed
• masturbating
• watching porn
• gossiping
• eating too much
• playing football
• working every day of the week

Why are any of these things less important than being gay and getting married? They are all banned in the bible.

[regulator]

This whole complaint that equal marriage rights somehow impinges on religious freedom just slays me.  In what possible way is anyone's religious freedom impeded by granting others rights?  Would the argument hold that if I decided that my religion told me that blacks were inferior, and therefore must be treated as second-class citizens?  How can freedom for one person take away another's freedom?  Unless these "religious freedom" cranks are somehow being forced to marry within their sex their argument is just so bogus.

I think that it is mostly a way to say that they don't approve of same sex marriage.  That said, given numerous cases where people (mostly bakers, for whatever reason) are forced to supply stuff for same sex marriages or else be sued/ruined even though it goes against their deeply held beliefs, I can see at least some of the argument.

Again, substitute "black" for "same sex" and see if your argument still holds.

This is not about race, so leave it be with the straw person.

I personally don't care who wishes to marry whom.  If nothing else, it will give the social scientists endless fodder for studying things like divorce rates, comparisons to conventional marriages on things like health, income, etc.  But  would have a much easier time living and let live if I felt like the same courtesy were extended all around.

Actually race is a pretty good equivalent.  Both are caused by genetics influenced by environment (some of that being within the womb as the environment) and have no actual negative or positive features based on those genetics.

But of course a homosexual always has the option of STFU and pretend to be straight in public.  If they are white or Asian, poof!  No discrimination.  Not saying it is right, but it is an important distinction when attempting to equate being gay with being, say, black.

Like I said, mostly I could not give a flying reproductive act with the baked good of your choice (I am open minded) about any of this.  I am white, straight, very married and have kids I am raising in a house in the burbs.  I live my life and everyone else lives theirs.  What I don't care for is the ever-increasing central gubmint control of damn near everything and if you don't agree things get rammed down your throat even if it means you lose teeth in the process.  Should the state discriminate on who it grants marriage licenses to?  As far as I am concerned, what consenting adults choose to do with their lives is up to them, whether that means single, conventional marriage, gay marriage, marrying a close relative, bigamy, whatever.  Forcing private citizens to do things that are against their deeply held personal or religious beliefs?  Not so much.

[trailrated]

What I find hilarious is that many religious people will pick and choose which parts of their respective doctrines to follow depending on their own desires. For example, many a Christian that was interviewed about gay marriage were, unsurprisingly, against it. When asked how many of them had been divorced, many of them had been! Both things are banned in the bible, but only one is followed.

• eating shell fish
• getting tattooed
• masturbating
• watching porn
• gossiping
• eating too much
• playing football
• working every day of the week

Why are any of these things less important than being gay and getting married? They are all banned in the bible.

I call bullshit because it did not address me specifically watching porn on my laptop. Therefore it is ok.

[Sparafusile]

Forcing private citizens to do things that are against their deeply held personal or religious beliefs?  Not so much.

I mostly agree with everything you said, but I'd like to discuss this statement for a moment. This is just a thought exercise and isn't directed at you personally. I have two hypothetical scenarios:

1) What if it was my deeply held person belief that I didn't want to pay taxes any more - would that be acceptable? I'm a surgeon and it's my deeply held personal belief that my patients never receive blood transfusions and several of my patients (who do not share that belief) have died because of it. Is that acceptable? How about this - it is my deeply held personal belief that everybody with blue eyes is really the devil and I decide to start shooting them in the street. Hopefully that's not acceptable.

Now my next scenario:

2) A group of people come into power in the government that decide that it is not acceptable to eat sushi any more. I happen to love sushi, but ok, I can live with that. Next the same group of people decide that it's not acceptable to buy any type of shoe except Converse (chosen at random). Probably not a big deal, but may be a little annoying. Finally, the same group of people decide that any one that's not of Scandinavian descent can no longer attend college. That's probably going to be a problem.

Both of these were taken to the extreme to illustrate a point. Now let's extrapolate this into the current topic.

1) I'm Christian and I believe that people that fall in love with someone of the same sex is not able to be seen as equal under the law and are therefor not allowed to get married.

2) I'm gay and the government says that I'm not allowed to visit the love of my life in the hospital or have a decision on whether to pull the plug.

Notice that in all of my #1 scenarios, the person holding the belief drastically affects people that don't hold that belief. All of my #2 scenarios the person being affected is powerless to change the circumstances that happen to be repressive. So my opinion is that you should NOT be able to act on any belief that you have. If it doesn't affect anybody other than yourself in your own house then YES do whatever you want. But when people's beliefs start becoming law that's a huge problem for me.

[regulator]

Forcing private citizens to do things that are against their deeply held personal or religious beliefs?  Not so much.

I mostly agree with everything you said, but I'd like to discuss this statement for a moment. This is just a thought exercise and isn't directed at you personally. I have two hypothetical scenarios:

1) What if it was my deeply held person belief that I didn't want to pay taxes any more - would that be acceptable? I'm a surgeon and it's my deeply held personal belief that my patients never receive blood transfusions and several of my patients (who do not share that belief) have died because of it. Is that acceptable? How about this - it is my deeply held personal belief that everybody with blue eyes is really the devil and I decide to start shooting them in the street. Hopefully that's not acceptable.

Now my next scenario:

2) A group of people come into power in the government that decide that it is not acceptable to eat sushi any more. I happen to love sushi, but ok, I can live with that. Next the same group of people decide that it's not acceptable to buy any type of shoe except Converse (chosen at random). Probably not a big deal, but may be a little annoying. Finally, the same group of people decide that any one that's not of Scandinavian descent can no longer attend college. That's probably going to be a problem.

Both of these were taken to the extreme to illustrate a point. Now let's extrapolate this into the current topic.

1) I'm Christian and I believe that people that fall in love with someone of the same sex is not able to be seen as equal under the law and are therefor not allowed to get married.

2) I'm gay and the government says that I'm not allowed to visit the love of my life in the hospital or have a decision on whether to pull the plug.

Notice that in all of my #1 scenarios, the person holding the belief drastically affects people that don't hold that belief. All of my #2 scenarios the person being affected is powerless to change the circumstances that happen to be repressive. So my opinion is that you should NOT be able to act on any belief that you have. If it doesn't affect anybody other than yourself in your own house then YES do whatever you want. But when people's beliefs start becoming law that's a huge problem for me.

I'd say we are not that far apart.  In the case of your surgeon, he can have whatever beliefs about blood transfusions he wishes (although this is highly improbably considering what most doctors are comfy doing to people), but since it clearly has direct negative effects on other people (they die) he can also expect to suffer the consequences (loss of medical license, malpractice suits, etc.).  Obviously this is hyperbole.

Your two scenarios are quite different from the intentional extremes.  The Xtian in 1 is free to believe whatever they like and vote accordingly.  If their viewpoint does not carry the majority, tough titties.  However, forcing them to take personal actions that do not square with their beliefs (e.g. presiding at a homosexual marriage ceremony) is where I get all 2nd Amendment/well regulated militia/the tree of freedom is watered with the blood of tyrants.

Scenario 2 is problematic in the extreme, which is why I have no particular problem with homosexuals, cousins or bigamists getting married.  This is an issue of state control.  Either the state should keep its ugly, dirty nose out of marriage entirely (tax code, I am looking at you), or it should bless all unions equally.

Acting on stuff that hurts other people (aside from voting, which is a right of all citizens however pleasant or repugnant their views might be) should be a no-no.  Being forced to do things should also obviously be a no-no.