Breaking news SCOTUS rules for Gay marriage

[dragon]

link

Washington (CNN)In a landmark opinion, the Supreme Court ruled Friday that states cannot ban same-sex marriage, establishing a new civil right and handing gay rights advocates a victory that until very recently would have seemed unthinkable.

The 5-4 ruling had Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority with the four liberal justices. Each of the four conservative justices wrote their own dissent.

The far-reaching decision settles one of the major civil rights fights of this era -- one that has rapidly evolved in the minds of the American pubic and its leaders, including President Barack Obama. He struggled publicly with the issue and ultimately embraced same-sex marriage in the months before his 2012 re-election.

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family," Kennedy wrote. "In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than they once were."

In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia blasted the Court's "threat to American democracy."

"The substance of today's decree is not of immense personal importance to me," he wrote. "But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today's judicial Putsch."

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the decision had "nothing to do with the Constitution.

"If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal," he wrote. "Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

The U.S. is now the 21st country to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. Married same-sex couples will now enjoy the same legal rights and benefits as married heterosexual couples nationwide and will be recognized on official documents such as birth and death certificates.

By the numbers: Same-sex marriage

The decision affirmed growing public support in the U.S. for gay marriage, with about two-thirds of Americans now in favor. And it comes as gay rights groups have seen gay marriage bans fall rapidly in recent years, with the number of states allowing gay marriage swelling most recently to 37 -- that is, until this ruling.

There were two questions before the Court, the first asked whether states could ban same sex marriage, the second asked whether states had to recognize lawful marriages performed out of state.

The relevant cases were argued earlier this year. Attorney John Bursch, serving as Michigan's Special Assistant Attorney General, defended four states' bans on gay marriage before the Court, arguing that the case was not about how to define marriage, but rather about who gets to decide the question.

The case came before the Supreme Court after several lower courts overturned state bans on gay marriage. A federal appeals court had previously ruled in favor of the state bans, with Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals writing a majority opinion in line with the rationale that the issue should be decided through the political process, not the courts.

Fourteen couples and two widowers challenged the bans. Attorneys Mary Bonauto and Doug Hallward-Driemeier presented their case before the Court, arguing that the freedom to marry is a fundamental right for all people and should not be left to popular vote.
Same-sex marriage in the U.S.
Same-sex marriage in the U.S. 33 photos
EXPAND GALLERY

Three years after Obama first voiced his support for gay couples' right to marry, his administration supported the same sex couples at the Supreme Court.

"Gay and lesbian people are equal," Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. told the justices at the oral arguments earlier this year. "It is simply untenable -- untenable -- to suggest that they can be denied the right of equal participation in an institution of marriage, or that they can be required to wait until the majority decides that it is ready to treat gay and lesbian people as equals.

Map: Where same-sex marriage is recognized in the U.S.

The same-sex couples who challenged gay marriage bans in Michigan, Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio were just a few of the estimated 650,000 same-sex couples in the United States, 125,000 of whom are raising children.

The challenges included same-sex couples who wanted to marry, those who sought to have their lawful out-of-state marriage recognized, as well as those who wanted to amend a birth or death certificate with their marriage status.

The lead plaintiff in the case is Jim Obergefell who married his spouse John Arthur in 2013 months before Arthur died.

The couple, who lived in Ohio, had to travel to Maryland aboard a medical jet to get married when Arthur became gravely ill. And when Arthur died, Obergefell began to fight to be recognized as Arthur's spouse on his death certificate.

The plaintiffs from Michigan are April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, two Detroit-area nurses who are also foster parents. They took to the courts after they took in four special-needs newborns who were either abandoned or surrendered at birth, but could not jointly adopt the children because Michigan's adoption code requires that couples be married to adopt.

Milestones for LGBT rights

Sgt. Ijpe Dekoe and Thomas Kostura became plaintiffs in the gay marriage case after they moved to Tennessee from New York.

The pair had married in New York in 2011, but Dekoe's position in the Army took the couple to Tennessee, which banned gay marriage and refused to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

[cosmicalstorm]

Let the butthurt begin. I can't believe it took them this long.

[Borgholio]

The crying from the religious right about how God is going to smite us all is pure deliciousness. This might want to be merged into the General Gay Marriage issues thread though.

[Zaune]

Let's hope they confine themselves to whining. This would be a really silly thing to fight another War of Southern Aggression over.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I'm kinda curious to hear Scalia's reasoning behind this being "a threat to American democracy" and "a judicial Putsch."

Great news about the decision though.

[The Romulan Republic]

Let's hope they confine themselves to whining. This would be a really silly thing to fight another War of Southern Aggression over.

I really don't see that happening. We might, God forbid, get a few terrorist scumbags and constant political/legislative attempts to undermine it like with abortion, which is certainly bad, but nothing worse than that.

This is the new mainstream. We've won. Don't be complacent, but enjoy it.

I'm kinda curious to hear Scalia's reasoning behind this being "a threat to American democracy" and "a judicial Putsch."

Great news about the decision though.

Scalia is an asshole?

[dragon]

You should see the crap that Senator Santorum tweeted.

Today, 5 unelected judges redefined the foundational unit of society. Now it is the people's turn to speak #Marriage

That was the same crap bigots said in 1967 about Loving V. Virgina decision.
What's pathetic is that I know a interracial couple that are complaining about how this is against god will. I pointed out to them that is the same thing religious nuts were saying in the 1960 about your marriage. Their response is that their case was different.

[Flagg]

Let the butthurt begin. I can't believe it took them this long.

Honestly, I'm surprised it happened this soon. I was all but positive that Kennedy would play Wise Old Man Equal to God aka swing vote (which he did) and decide "The Nation Isn't Ready Yet" and cast his opinion with the 4 Troglodytes, but instead he deemed us worthy.

So once again the forces of progress in this country take a step forward, dragging all of the bigoted shits with us into the future and in 10 years it will be no big fucking deal. In 20 years children will be taught that it was once illegal for gays to marry and they will be shocked and will likely think that the leaders making the decisions nowadays are a bunch of stupid old bigoted twits. And they'd be correct. But one step at a time.

[Flagg]

You should see the crap that Senator Santorum tweeted.

Today, 5 unelected judges redefined the foundational unit of society. Now it is the people's turn to speak #Marriage

That was the same crap bigots said in 1967 about Loving V. Virgina decision.
What's pathetic is that I know a interracial couple that are complaining about how this is against god will. I pointed out to them that is the same thing religious nuts were saying in the 1960 about your marriage. Their response is that their case was different.

They were unelected? You mean the US Senate didn't vote to confirm (aka elect) them? Better get on that.
And how will the people speak? With their guns? The ballot box (won't change anything unless they can get enough bigots in the senate and enough states with bigoted legislatures unless they tried calling a Constitutional Convention, in which case I hope California, Oregon, and Washington simply walk away and join Canada. )?

But seriously, this is standard "Waa, activist judges!!!" that Frothy Seminal Fluid Shit-Mix and his ilk only whine about when they make decisions they disagree with. I didn't hear anything about "unelected judges" when SCOTUS gutted the Medicaid expansion part of the ACA.

[salm]

Congrats.

[Joun_Lord]

Good. Its been wayyyyyy to long in the making.

I do love though all the conservative weiners whining about this. Calling for secession, talking about the Big Gay Hate Machine forcing homosexuality down their throats (I love that wording, seriously), and how people are willing to be jailed, die, or burn to deny what should be a basic human right to them there gay "people" (not my quote marks FYI).

And the really, REALLY stupid thing is many of these fucking morons, fucking disgusting shitbags who think some book is reason to attack people, destroy a country, or die, are the same idiots spewing Santorum about freedom when it comes to gun rights.

They say its their god given right to own weapons, say the government shouldn't be able to tell them what they can and cannot do, bitch about their rights and freedoms being infringed, say that as long as they aren't harming others with their penis compensators why shouldn't they be allowed to have them. And not a fucking one sees the similarity to the fight for guns rights as to the fight for gay marriage.

I support gun rights but when it comes right down to it I think someone being able to marry their love is more important, more of a human right (though gun rights is quite important still, especially for people like gay people who might have to protect their lives and marriage from bigoted assholes, a very real possibility for alot of gay people depending on how butthurt the conservative fucknozzles get about losing) but still their is alot of parallels between the two fights to the point they should be like two hairy bears spoonning. I would think gay people would be the some of the most ardent supporters of gun rights if for nothing else then just for selfish reasons alone but nope. With the cock docking of religious insanity and guns gay people for the NRA and other groups are persona non grata at best.

But whatever, conservatives are morons. They'd have the generally religious and socially conservative black and Hispanic voting block locked up if they weren't so anti-immigration and racist with a nice topping of anti-poor mentality.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I don't really have much to add other than to express how happy I am. After all the years of hard work - all those countless days of canvassing, organizing, marching and researching - paid off in the end. I will be enjoying the schadenfreude when the right-wing/anti-gay lobby starts shrieking.

[Kingmaker]

I'm kinda curious to hear Scalia's reasoning behind this being "a threat to American democracy" and "a judicial Putsch."

I keep hearing people say this like it's some sort of bizarre, incomprehensible thing. If you don't feel the majority decision had legal merit (which Scalia obviously doesn't), then you are left with a scenario where the Supreme Court abused their authority and overturned legitimate legislative decisions in order to carry out an ideological agenda. That is presumably a bad thing.

I don't agree with Scalia here, but it's not a particularly weird thing to believe.

[Simon_Jester]

The question, then, is why Scalia disagrees with the court's legal reasoning...

[Steve]

IIRC it has to do with the perception that they twisted the 14th Amendment beyond its proper reading. Given Scalia is, IIRC, a "Strict Constitutionalist", that is that he believes in reading just what's written on the paper and not taking anything extra from that, maybe I can see that. The idea that the Supreme Court has basically stretched a Constitutional Amendment beyond recognition to achieve a political end that should have been left to the voters.

....but the same could be said for Loving v. Virginia, couldn't it? Indeed, my brief glimpse of the opinion shows that the majority opinion even brought up that ruling as precedent for marriage being considered a "vital personal right".

There also seems to be this perception that this means gays can force Christian ministers to oversee their weddings, thus violating their Freedom of Religion. This... is just... I don't know where they get this from?

[Simon_Jester]

If Scalia put something as dumb as the "force ministers to preside" argument into his opinion, then we need a mechanism to review the qualifications of the justices.

Gross drooling stupidity should entitle us to force a justice to retire, if only to be sure we're actually getting the powerful legal mind we pay them that six figure salary for. I can accept that a powerful legal mind will disagree with me- but it should not advance grossly stupid arguments, or ones that blatantly contradict the facts about their own ruling.

As to the extent of the fourteenth amendment, I'll address that later.

[Steve]

I haven't seen Scalia quoted as saying that, but it is apparently on the minds of the opponents of the ruling. It seems most of the anti-s on the GOP side are screaming about the need to protect Christians' Freedom of Religion.

[Kingmaker]

If Scalia put something as dumb as the "force ministers to preside" argument into his opinion, then we need a mechanism to review the qualifications of the justices.

Then I guess it's a good thing it isn't. You could always just read Scalia's dissent. It's not particularly long or arcane.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Then I guess it's a good thing it isn't. You could always just read Scalia's dissent. It's not particularly long or arcane.

... you say as you link to a 103 page (apparently unsearchable) document without giving any obvious clues as to where within to look for Scalia's dissent.

For people who don't instantly know the lay-out of legal documents, you can find Scalia's dissent on pages 70-77.

[K. A. Pital]

Since there is no doubt what-ever that the People never decided to prohibit the limita-tion of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debateover same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue.

Um... What exactly is wrong with this guy?

[Edi]

Scalia is a fundamentalist, young earth creationist, thoroughly politicized hypocritical conservative asshole who has absolutely no problem trampling all over the constitution if it serves his favorite political issues, but who screeches like a singed monkey and flings poo anytime things don't go the way he likes.

His conduct in the past few years has made it clear that whatever merits he once had, he's utterly unsuitable and unqualified to sit in judgment on the nation's highest court.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Honestly, I'm surprised it happened this soon. I was all but positive that Kennedy would play Wise Old Man Equal to God aka swing vote (which he did) and decide "The Nation Isn't Ready Yet" and cast his opinion with the 4 Troglodytes, but instead he deemed us worthy.

Why? Justice Kennedy has personally penned every single gay rights decision in the past 20 years. Romer V. Evans, Lawrence V. Texas, US V. Windsor. All of them. He has been very consistent on this issue. Whatever else he has voted on, there is one thing he always stands by. He hates laws based on Animus toward groups of people. He does not like them. Always votes to strike them down.

His particular form of Jurisprudence is not "swing" per se. He just does not operate on the usual left/right axis at all.

[bilateralrope]

Alabamas response is unsurprising.
To avoid marrying gay couples, some Alabama counties have stopped marrying everyone

Some Alabama counties have found a bizarre trick to avoid the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage ruling: They're not issuing marriage licenses to anyone at all.

Pike County Probate Judge Wes Allen explained in a statement to DothanEagle.com's Greg Phillips:

I am saddened that the United States Supreme Court ruled as they did but this ruling does not invalidate Alabama Code Section 30-1-9, which states 'Marriage licenses may be issued by the judges of probate of the several counties.' The word 'may' provides probate judges with the option of whether or not to engage in the practice of issuing marriage licenses and I have chosen not to perform that function. My office discontinued issuing marriage licenses in February and I have no plans to put Pike County back into the marriage business. The policy of my office regarding marriage is no different today than it was yesterday.

The idea is that Pike County and other counties doing this aren't technically discriminating against same-sex couples' marriage rights because they're not allowing anyone, gay or straight, to marry. That seems likely to backfire once opposite-sex and same-sex couples alike start showing up at the court to marry. But these kinds of harsh tactics aren't unusual for a state that's historically shown the lowest levels of support for marriage equality, and where the chief justice previously ordered probate judges to essentially disobey a federal ruling in favor of marriage equality.

But some places in Alabama, like Mobile County and Coffee County, are currently obeying the Supreme Court's Friday ruling and marrying same-sex couples. So, at the very least, gay and lesbian couples can cross county lines to get their marriage licenses even if more probate judges take up Pike County's trick.

[Edi]

It'll be interesting to see what this asshat will do if the legislature changes the law to say "shall issue".

[Flagg]

Honestly, I'm surprised it happened this soon. I was all but positive that Kennedy would play Wise Old Man Equal to God aka swing vote (which he did) and decide "The Nation Isn't Ready Yet" and cast his opinion with the 4 Troglodytes, but instead he deemed us worthy.

Why? Justice Kennedy has personally penned every single gay rights decision in the past 20 years. Romer V. Evans, Lawrence V. Texas, US V. Windsor. All of them. He has been very consistent on this issue. Whatever else he has voted on, there is one thing he always stands by. He hates laws based on Animus toward groups of people. He does not like them. Always votes to strike them down.

His particular form of Jurisprudence is not "swing" per se. He just does not operate on the usual left/right axis at all.

Honestly, I just didn't know that and he voted to ignore the will of the people in Bush v Gore, which is still causing misery here and abroad. But at least this gives me a modicum of respect for the man.