Breaking news SCOTUS rules for Gay marriage

[Flagg]

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.

There will be tons of this shit going on. FOXNEWS will treat them like heroes and the first few fired like they are martyrs. But when enough lose their jobs, and the state legal defense coffers are down to nothing they will just fall in line. And they don't, the justice department may be able to step in if they can get them on "violating the civil rights of those being denied licenses" (including "straight" couples) by bigoted shits who think they are heroes for committing civil disobedience, when they are the ones with the power and thus are unable to really have any just platform to speak from in a civil disobedience context. But they will try and as usual and they will lose as usual.

[salm]

I wonder if conservatives are going to get more divorces now and marry less. I mean marriage is now devalued, so perhaps it won´t be worth the effort and price tag that comes with it.

[Rekkon]

I have the misfortune to be in Idaho this weekend, so you can guess what I had to listen to in the restaurant.

[salm]

Potatoes gonna potate.

[Ahriman238]

Fstdt is having trouble keeping up, cataloging the shit-slinging for the future. It's glorious.

....

I may be sort of a horrible person. I'm deeply happy for this massive step forward in treating more of our people like actual people, but it's the impotent fury of the right that makes me chuckle to myself with glee. Now, whatever became of that one pastor who swore on public TV he'd self-immolate if the Court allowed gay marriage nationwide?

[Zaune]

I wonder if conservatives are going to get more divorces now and marry less. I mean marriage is now devalued, so perhaps it won´t be worth the effort and price tag that comes with it.

Funny you should mention that...

In an op-ed in the Canberra City News, Nick Jensen wrote that he and his wife Sarah “refuse to recognize the government’s regulation of marriage if its definition includes the solemnization of same sex couples.”

He said that he and his wife would not split up, and would continue to live together and refer to each other as husband and wife. But, he explains, “by changing the definition of marriage, ‘marriage’ will, in years to come, have an altogether different sense and purpose. It will not be about the mystery of difference in sexual unity, as children come from gendered dissimilarity. It will not be about building and securing communities into the future… If this is no longer the case, then we no longer wish to be associated with this new definition.”

Funny thing is, he and I actually kind of agree on one thing. They're going to carry on with business as usual and it's not going to change much of anything, because marriage is ultimately a state of mind.

And now they've achieved equality over a few points of contract law that a significant percentage of straight people can't be bothered to make use of anyway, maybe the US LGBT community can move on to minor concerns like the fact that 40% of all homeless minors in the US were kicked out of the family home over their sexuality?

[Wild Zontargs]

It looks like Texas isn't going to force anyone to do their jobs if they don't want to:

Texans of all faiths must be absolutely secure in the knowledge that their religious freedom is beyond the reach of government. Renewing and reinforcing that promise is all the more important in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. The government must never pressure a person to abandon or violate his or her sincerely held religious beliefs regarding a topic such as marriage. That sort of religious coercion will never be a “compelling governmental interest,” and it will never be “the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.”

Texas RFRA enshrines the foundational principle that religious liberty confined to a sanctuary is not liberty at all, and religious freedom limited to one’s home or thoughts is not freedom at all. The law protects religious liberty not only in houses of worship — but also in schools, in businesses, in the military, in public forums, and in the town square. These protections are afforded to all people, of all faiths. Yet in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision, the law’s promise of religious liberty will be tested by some who seek to silence and marginalize those whose conscience will not allow them to participate in or endorse marriages that are incompatible with their religious beliefs.

As government officials, we have a constitutional duty to preserve, protect, and defend the religious liberty of every Texan.

With these obligations in mind, I expect all agencies under my direction to prioritize compliance with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I of the Texas Constitution, and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. All state agency heads should ensure that no one acting on behalf of their agency takes any adverse action against any person, as defined in Chapter 311 of the Texas Government Code, on account of the person’s act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief. This order applies to any agency decision, including but not limited to granting or denying benefits, managing agency employees, entering or enforcing agency contracts, licensing and permitting decisions, or enforcing state laws and regulations.

If I'm reading this right, it says "we can't make any state employee participate in or recognize a gay marriage against their will, so anyone who doesn't want to play ball doesn't have to. Neener neener."

[Terralthra]

The dissents are simply breathtaking in their bat-shittedness, particularly Scalia and Thomas.

Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.

Is it me, or is Scalia basically just whining about his sexless marriage here?

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lose their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.

You heard it here first, folks: not being allowed to get married is like slavery, and there's no diminishment of dignity or humanity for either. Malcolm X had a phrase to describe people like Justice Thomas perfectly, but it's not my place to use it.

[Nephtys]

Absolutely insane. Instead of even remotely couching things in terms of gradiose 'good for the history books' language, Scalia basically takes a dig at 'promiscuous hippies' through some sort of time portal no doubt, sounding like he's throwing a literal tantrum.

Thomas then goes and says any atrocity that the government can do doesn't reduce the dignity of the victims! This is all going to end up a lot like the entire 'Let's start quoting the Confederate primary documents, shall we?' stuff in regards to that whole historical legacy.

The Onion is absolutely right. These guys are all going to be villains in some Oscar winning movie come a few years, where they end up looking like a pack of frothing monsters and get defeated by some underdog George Clooney-esque lawyer, with Ginsberg as some Yoda-figure.

[bilateralrope]

After Gay Marriage Decision, Mississippi May Stop Issuing All Marriage Licenses.

Mississippi is considering pulling the plug on issuing marriage licenses altogether after the Supreme Court struck down bans on gay marriage Friday morning.

As the state's governor and lieutenant governor condemned the court’s decision, state House Judiciary Chairman Andy Gipson began studying ways to prevent gay marriage in Mississippi. Governor Phil Bryant said he would do all he can "to protect and defend the religious freedoms of Mississippi.” To Bryant’s point of doing “all” the state could do, Gipson, who is a Baptist minister, suggested removing marriage licenses entirely.

“One of the options that other states have looked at is removing the state marriage license requirement,” Gipson told The Clarion-Ledger, a local newspaper. “We will be researching what options there are. I personally can see the pros and cons to that. I don’t know if it would be better to have no marriage certificate sponsored by the state or not. But it’s an option out there to be considered.”

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

Oklahoma is investigating a similar change. A bill there would allow notaries and religious leaders to sign marriage documents and strip the power from judges and clerks.

Alabama already has one county that operates in this manner.

Additionally, state Attorney General Jim Hood said the Supreme Court’s decision “is not immediately effective in Mississippi”—though legally, this is incorrect, as the Supreme Court is the highest in the land. "It will become effective in Mississippi, and circuit clerks will be required to issues same-sex marriage licenses, when the 5th Circuit lifts the stay of Judge Reeves' order.… The 5th Circuit might also choose not to lift the stay and instead issue an order, which could take considerably longer before it become effective,” Hood said.

The Texas attorney general also tried to delay marriage licenses with a similar statement, but many county clerks there began issuing marriage licenses regardless. At least one county clerk issued a handful of marriage licenses in Mississippi before Hood made his statement. The Forrest County Court House issued a license to Amber Hilton and Annice Smith, who have been together for six years.

Add Mississippi to the list of states trying to act illegally.

We also have the usual "lets move to Canada" idiots.

[Darth Nostril]

Oh good grief ...

A: Canada legalised same sex marriage in 2005

B: What makes them think that Canada will even let them in? Unless there's a shortage of right wing fuckwits in Canada that I'm unaware of.

[GuppyShark]

They could move to Australia where it's still not legal.

But you know, that would require research, not reaction.

[Darth Nostril]

Oh hey they could move to Russia instead. It's an oppressive theocratic bigoted thug of a nation where it's practically state mandated that you engage in gay bashing. They'd fit right in.

[Thanas]

I am very happy that the US made this step forward, and very disturbed at how the quality and writing of Scalia went down. Though having once seen him at a conference he seemed to be a huge gasbag anyway - basically his "discussion contribution" was acting like an arrogant asshole.

[Channel72]

We also have the usual "lets move to Canada" idiots.

Poor conservatives... they don't even really have another country for expatriation fantasies... The old "I'm moving to Canada" thing only makes sense when liberals say it.

I'd suggest Saudi Arabia as a potential candidate. It's got: (1) no gay marriage (in fact no gay anything except for gay beheadings), and (2) no problems with (female) sexual promiscuity that can't be rectified with more beheadings and/or beatings/imprisonment. It's basically got everything a conservative could want. Well... except for Jesus, I guess. But you know you, no country is perfect.

[Gaidin]

I am very happy that the US made this step forward, and very disturbed at how the quality and writing of Scalia went down. Though having once seen him at a conference he seemed to be a huge gasbag anyway - basically his "discussion contribution" was acting like an arrogant asshole.

I'm not sure for the past two opinions he was "writing" so much as "talking at paper". If that makes sense. Especially with the way you describe him at a conference.

[Zaune]

I'm not sure for the past two opinions he was "writing" so much as "talking at paper". If that makes sense. Especially with the way you describe him at a conference.

Maybe he's taken to using speech-to-text software and got a bit carried away?

[Gaidin]

I don't know. Either way, he was ranting more than anything. Let him rant. Thomas had the opinion that I think was truly full of shit either way.

[Flagg]

I wonder if conservatives are going to get more divorces now and marry less. I mean marriage is now devalued, so perhaps it won´t be worth the effort and price tag that comes with it.

Funny you should mention that...

In an op-ed in the Canberra City News, Nick Jensen wrote that he and his wife Sarah “refuse to recognize the government’s regulation of marriage if its definition includes the solemnization of same sex couples.”

He said that he and his wife would not split up, and would continue to live together and refer to each other as husband and wife. But, he explains, “by changing the definition of marriage, ‘marriage’ will, in years to come, have an altogether different sense and purpose. It will not be about the mystery of difference in sexual unity, as children come from gendered dissimilarity. It will not be about building and securing communities into the future… If this is no longer the case, then we no longer wish to be associated with this new definition.”

Funny thing is, he and I actually kind of agree on one thing. They're going to carry on with business as usual and it's not going to change much of anything, because marriage is ultimately a state of mind.

And now they've achieved equality over a few points of contract law that a significant percentage of straight people can't be bothered to make use of anyway, maybe the US LGBT community can move on to minor concerns like the fact that 40% of all homeless minors in the US were kicked out of the family home over their sexuality?

You know that not being married meant that homosexual partners were routinely refused to be allowed to be with their dying partners in many hospitals and hospices, right? You know they were outright refused decision making power when it came to making end of life decisions regarding life support and other means, right? A mariiage certificate is a legal document, and it's far more than just "a state of mind", it comes with countless benefits and responsibilities that non-married couples don't receive. It also makes things like adoption, inheritance, and a myriad of other important shit much easier, and just plain possible. This nonsense about it all being a practically meaningless piece of paper needs to go the way of banning same sex marriage. AKA up Scalia's fat ass.

As far as homeless youth being kicked out due to their sexuality, I can't pretend to know what it's like for your own parents to toss you out of the house and have family turn their back on you due to your pecker getting hard or vagina getting wet when you look at the "wrong" gender, but it's also got nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[Borgholio]

Some on the right are actually seeing the writing on the wall.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/g ... rm-n383296

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told Chuck Todd on NBC's "Meet the Press" that if the Republican party doesn't change its official position on same-sex marriage it will "hurt" the GOP in 2016. In 2012, the Republican platform read, "We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

Echoing former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, Graham argued that Republicans should abandon that official 2012 position. Graham continued, "What I want to do is protect the religious liberties of those who believe that opposing same sex marriage as part of their faith. So no I would not engage in the Constitutional amendment process as a party going into 2016. Accept the Court's ruling. Fight for the religious liberties of every American."

[salm]

Mike Huckabee had the funniest reaction up till now:

I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch

I´m stealing that.

[The Romulan Republic]

Depending on how literally you take that, you could interpret it as Huckabee stating his intention to engage in armed revolt.

Of course, I'm sure he won't. But he could end up inciting others who will. Fucking shit bag.

[bilateralrope]

Huckabee predicts MLK-like resistance to gay marriage ruling

GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee predicted that Christians will push back against gay marriage in a similar way to Dr. Martin Luther King’s fight against racial discrimination.

On ABC’s “This Week” Sunday, host George Stephanopoulos asked Huckabee if he would advocate for civil disobedience following Friday’s Supreme Court ruling that made same-sex marriage legal nationwide.

“I don't think a lot of pastors and Christian schools are going to have a choice. They either are going to follow God, their conscience and what they truly believe is what the scripture teaches them, or they will follow civil law,” Huckabee said.
“They will go the path of Dr. Martin Luther King, who in his brilliant essay the letters from a Birmingham jail reminded us, based on what St. Augustine said, that an unjust law is no law at all. And I do think that we're going to see a lot of pastors who will have to make this tough decision,” he continued.

Huckabee went on to add Christian business owners, university presidents, school administrators and even county clerks who grant marriage licenses to the list of individuals likely to buck the ruling.

“If they have a conscientious objection, I think they should be excused,” he said.

Huckabee told Stephanopoulos that, together with the Thursday Supreme Court ruling upholding federal subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, the court has changed “process of how we govern.

“We’ve always been a nation of law,” he said. “We’re now a nation of men.”

Huckabee said the rulings were made “through a court edict of five unelected lawyers, a part of a committee, who decided that they knew better than the legislators who actually get to make law, that they know better than the people who voted in over 30 states to affirm traditional marriage,” and called it “judicial tyranny.”

I can't say that he's entirely wrong here. Civil disobedience from bigots seems likely. County clerks refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, businesses and schools refusing to recognise the marriages, etc.

The question is if any of those bigots will be in a position to do it twice.

[Borgholio]

His comments about the supreme court are great. Them being unelected is only an issue when they say something he disagrees with.

[Gaidin]

We've apparently been imperially ruling over his ass since Citizens United apparently.