In a pair of major victories for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that married same-sex couples were entitled to federal benefits and, by declining to decide a case from California, effectively allowed same-sex marriages there.
The rulings leave in place laws banning same-sex marriage around the nation, and the court declined to say whether there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. But in clearing the way for same-sex marriage in California, the nation’s most populous state, the court effectively increased to 13 the number of states that allow such unions.
The decision on federal benefits will immediately extend many benefits to couples in the states where same-sex marriage is legal, and it will give the Obama administration the ability to broaden other benefits through executive actions…
The decision on the federal law was 5 to 4, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy writing the majority opinion, which the four liberal-leaning justices joined.
“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”
The ruling overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, which passed with bipartisan support and which President Bill Clinton signed.
The decision will raise a series of major questions for the Obama administration about how aggressively to overhaul references to marriage throughout the many volumes that lay out the laws of the United States.
Overdue – and like many SCOTUS rulings, the court noted responsibility from here forward lies with Congress.
I’m not certain Congress could produce a bus schedule.
Boggie in the butt — The pusher, pushed.
As though straight people don’t engage in anal sex. Didn’t you know that’s the new thing with the Christian Right kids….if it’s anal you are still a virgin :).
Who said anything about Christian Right kids or are you just going down the “progressive” hit list?
Well, nobody said anything about Christian Right kids here. But they are the ones in the news story a few years back who reportedly deluded themselves to think that anal sex was not sex.
Not to worry. It applies to all humans.
But, then again, if you believe in some Big Daddy in the sky, winged angels, fork tailed fallen angels, and all that jazz, you’ll believe anything.
Yep, but I’ll never believe in the travesty of Gaaaaay marriage. Some Big Daddy in the bathhouse.
Boing!
California lost because the government decided that they didn’t want to fight so if the people want to blame someone they need to look at the state not the Supreme Court. Also DOMA isn’t completely dead: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/26/hold-on-doma-wasnt-totally-thrown-out-heres-the-provision-that-could-lead-to-another-gay-marriage-battle/
If someone would like to comment about the subject at hand, the Defense of Marriage Act, go right ahead.
If you’re going to carry on about the ruling regarding California’s Proposition 8, then we need another thread.
As far as DOMA goes, I have a question for the dissenters. “What part of “equal protection under the law” don’t you understand?
I doubt you even read the three dissenting opinions…
“Dissenting Opinions:”===aka, BS that doesn’t matter.
Ha, ha.
Keep your eyes on the balls.
Neither did you apparently.
The crux of the dissent was that, in their opinions, the case should have never been heard by the SCOTUS in the first place because Constitutional thresholds of jurisdiction and standing were not met.
Since you are so keen to “keep your eye on the ball,” even if it is short-sighted, I’d guess that even you should see how a ruling like this will probably come up again to justify the court inserting itself into things in the future it has no business in.
My Good Ness Sea Lawyer—too long at sea…. you don’t have your legs underneath you at all. Just READ WHAT YOU SAID!!! Ha, ha.
The crux of the dissent was that, in their opinions, the case should have never been heard by the SCOTUS /// Yeah==BUT IT WAS HEARD AND RULED ON. How is this response anything other than IRONCLAD AGREEMENT with what I posted? Geeze SL–this is Brain Tumor stupid.
in the first place because Constitutional thresholds of jurisdiction and standing were not met. /// I picture men in jail rattling their tin cups on the bars: “You can’t do this to me.” Very poor orientation to reality.
Since you are so keen to “keep your eye on the ball,” /// no–I said balls. A gay joke if you will. I see you haven’t spent that much time at sea. (x-2)
even if it is short-sighted, I’d guess that even you should see how a ruling like this will probably come up again to justify the court inserting itself into things in the future it has no business in. /// Of course, there is no end to conflict. But RESOLVING fundamental constitutional rights against the vicious stupidity of our fellow men is just what the Supremes are for. Where ya been?
Your next cruise should be on a ship with a good library.
Issues of a purely political nature are not the place for a non-elected, non-political branch of government to be injecting itself. That is major objection.
And as an aside, any activity for which you have to request permission and receive a license from the government, before engaging in, can’t really be considered a “fundamental constitutional right” under any reasonable definition.
And as an aside, any activity for which you have to request permission and receive a license from the government, before engaging in, can’t really be considered a “fundamental constitutional right” under any reasonable definition.
Bingo!
Well, Bobbo, you are actually right. But, for the record, I haven’t read the dissent yet.
I have a feeling that it will confirm my suspicion that Scalia was abused by a priest in his youth.
spsffan says:
6/26/2013 at 1:06 pm
Well, Bobbo, you are actually right. But, for the record, I haven’t read the dissent yet. /// But me no buts. The point is only about .023 of Dissenting Opinions ever come round to Majority Opinions. And on point, the original dissenting opinion is still BS. Its the “idea” that has operative in the new Majority Opinion. Simple Stuff.
I have a feeling that it will confirm my suspicion that Scalia was abused by a priest in his youth. /// Something happened to him. That other guy too.
Jurisdiction? Are you fucking kidding me?!!!
Care to go back to grade school and recite the THREE BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT?! (Hint: The press is NOT one of them despite claims to the contrary.)
Holly crap! What a stupid thing to say.
… And just in case you didn’t realize what SCOTUS was an abreviation for, it’s this:
(S)upreme
(C)ourt
(O)f
(T)he
(U)nited
(S)tates
The SCOTUS does not have universal jurisdiction, or maybe you should read the Constitution.
The SCOTUS just put into law the fact that the gummint will screw you over regardless of gender, religion, color, orientation or anything else.
Still reeling over the health care decision? Me too.
But this is NOT something I regret – and I’m straight!
>and like many SCOTUS rulings, the court noted responsibility from here forward lies with Congress.
That’s the exact opposite of what the court did. What they said was any law passed by Congress adverse to the interest of gays is unconstitutional.
The DOMA case was not about federalism. Just another muddled opinion from Anthony Kennedy.
You actually have the California case wrong as well. The proper result from what the Supreme Court did would be to vacate the District Court ruling and Prop 8 stands in California, while the two named plaintiffs are allowed to get marriage licenses. However, liberals who don’t care for the law will probably ignore that as well.
The problem with Liberals is they only care about the favorable outcome, even if how they accomplished it has consequences down the road.
Good to see even Mickey can find a dance partner.
Get out of the Republican party! WE DON’T NEED YOUR (IGNORANT) HELP!
I can elaborate, but I see even BoBo doesn’t want to waste any more time with true “repukes”!
Thats Right!!!!!
Fricking
Evil
Republican
Pukes.
They used to be just stupid and money grasping but with the ascendency of the Anti-Science Religious Right, they done sloped over into evil.
Funny when the religious do that…… eh Jebus?
Really, what this ruling did was reinforce that the individual states have the prerogative, through their democratically elected legislatures, in defining and administering the rules around marriage (which has always been the tradition in the U.S. before DOMA was passed). That is the context in which DOMA was found to violate the Constitution.
Yeah but it sets up two gay couples exactly the same one married in California and one not allowed to be married in some shit hole of a Red State and the Supremes are going to have to decide about “Equal Protection” on point.
Its an interesting question (still) in my mind. I’m not gay, have no known relatives or friends who are gay so I’ve got no dog in this fight. I don’t see gay marriage as a “fundamental right” rather as all the benefits except xyz can be obtained contractually, I see it more as social engineering with the economic consequences that apply. xyz are the economic benefits that are given to spouses of heterosexual unions–tax benefits, survivor benefits and so forth. That being the case, fundamental rights normally don’t center on such issues. What is fundamental is to BE with that other person, and to be LEFT ALONE. The gays would not be fighting for the label of Married (by and large) if there was not a financial benefit going with it.
MONEY = CORRUPTION even the pure state of gayfull bliss. Seems they are no better/different than the straights. Ha, ha…… the sweet irony.
I don’t see how the Supremes will be able to avoid finding gay marriage a constitutional right with the right case brought before them….. and thats ok. Just because I don’t care, and it will increase the cost to non gays… the governing principle is that the damage to my own interests is close to zero while the benefit to an identifiable group is “huge.”
FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM = leaving other people alone.
This probably wouldn’t even be an issue if it hadn’t been a TRADITION to exclude a group of people based on some bullshit idea or BELIEF. (Sounds a lot like the slavery issue when you think about it that way.)
I’d take a more Christian approach.
I wouldn’t.
…. but you ain’t Jebus. Different strokes for different folks. See how carefully and individually a comment should be crafted?
Yea, Verily!!
Not a christian either so to take a “christian” approach would be hypocritical.
Only if you want to define it that way. Christian to various degrees can describe the actor or the action or both.
I am an evangelical existential anti-theist AND an atheist, but also quite christian in my care for my fellow man. Sadly, actions alone don’t provide access to heaven…. according to those who speak with God privately.
Your choice.
MikeN says:
6/26/2013 at 12:29 pm
>and like many SCOTUS rulings, the court noted responsibility from here forward lies with Congress.
That’s the exact opposite of what the court did. What they said was any law passed by Congress adverse to the interest of gays is unconstitutional. /// Bravo. I agree.
The DOMA case was not about federalism. Just another muddled opinion from Anthony Kennedy. /// Oops. In point of fact….. EVERY Sup Ct case is about federalism. Thats what the Supremes are all about, either directly or all the degrees of indirectness. Just look for the dots…. note their relative positions…. and draw the lines.
You actually have the California case wrong as well. The proper result from what the Supreme Court did would be to vacate the District Court ruling and Prop 8 stands in California, while the two named plaintiffs are allowed to get marriage licenses. //// Thats what Eideard said.
However, liberals who don’t care for the law will probably ignore that as well. /// Entered on a high note…. still left the dance retarded. Well, half assed is an improvement.
>Thats what Eideard said.
I missed where Eideard said that gay marriage is now banned in California. The post also looks diferent from what I remember as he makes no comment on the case.
Well Mickey—just read the OP again, or have someone else read it to you until you see your 180 Degree Opposite Error.
….. or until you get your talking points to rant onward. Until then….. how’s the bus schedule coming?
It’s like eating shellfish : an abomination.
Sea Lawyer providing even more evidence he is but a stow away on these judical seas says:
6/26/2013 at 1:29 pm
Issues of a purely political nature /// define purely political as it applies to laws/constraints that are placed upon the people. Distinguish from fundamental rights? aka: a supposition so unmet in nature as to constitute a Pink Unicorn.
are not the place for a non-elected, non-political branch of government to be injecting itself. That is major objection. /// Yeah, but the Supremes in Majority view disagree with you. You do know/recognize/understand what being the Supremes means don’t you???? It means saying “You can’t do this to me” or “but this is a purely political issue” means Unicorn Shit.
And as an aside, any activity for which you have to request permission and receive a license from the government, before engaging in, can’t really be considered a “fundamental constitutional right” under any reasonable definition. //// Again, the Supremes ruled expressly that the right to marriage is fundamental. Came up in inter-racial marriages so the open issue now is does the same reasoning apply to gays.
Must suck to always be riding a Unicorn.
Funny how everyone want’s to cite the Constitution and the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (often confused for the fifth) which wasn’t even part of the Bill of Rights!
So, would any of you idiot liberals care to look at the SECOND AMENDMENT which IS in the Bill of Rights?! Or would that be like asking you to pull your heads out of your asses?
Funny how everyone want’s to cite the Constitution and the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT /// Funny like a knock knock joke during opening argument in a Murder Trial?—THAT funny??===or actually the gravamen of the issue before the Court?
(often confused for the fifth) /// only an idiot would confuse such different provisions
which wasn’t even part of the Bill of Rights! /// So what? The BOR has an interesting history but once adopted, it is read with no greater weight than any other constitutional provision. Stop listening to the Devil.
So, would any of you idiot liberals care to look at the SECOND AMENDMENT which IS in the Bill of Rights?! /// Sure. How do guns apply??? I must be REALLY LIBERAL because I see NO CONNECTION AT ALL.
Or would that be like asking you to pull your heads out of your asses? /// Ha, ha….. the only pulling relevant here is pud pulling.
But I digress.
Traditional biblical marriage:
One man and his sister.
One man and his dead brother’s wife.
One man and one women and her servants.
One man and his rape victim.
One man and many women.
Maybe you should read a bible.
Genesis 5:2 etc.
They were created as a pair, a man and a woman.
Matthew 19:5 etc.
A man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife.
It is clearly stated in the bible that any other relationships such as incest, bigamy, etc. are counted as not the correct thing to do (sin, “missing the mark”).
These people were allowed to do these things, just like people continue to do today, Matthew 19:8 for one example states a reason why it has been allowed so far.
Read Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the scriptures of Matthew 19:3-12 for what the bible really says about marriage.
You might want to read the rest of the old testament.
The bible is not a book filled with only examples of what you should do, it also shows the many things that you should not do and what the consequences of those are.
Just because person A or B in the bible did this or that, it does not mean that it was correct or condoned.
Did YHWH or Jesus approve of the behavior of those people? NO.
If you would have bothered to read the scriptures I posted you would know that.
Like I said, you might want to actually read the fairy tale all the way through.
PS. I don’t care for fiction.
I have more than 30 years into the study of theology, ancient languages, scriptures, biblical and ancient archaeology, etc.
From an academic point of view.
I have read the entire book around 25 times and more than half of the books over 50 times. Including many transliterations and translations.
And I am not making this up.
If you have not read it, then you have no authority at all to comment on it.
If you have not understood any of the philosophy contained in it, then you have no authority to comment on it.
So your comments are meaningless and you do not know that of which you speak.
The push for marriage politically is young people telling their parents that children don’t need a mother and a father.
Well, THAT makes no sense at all…. about three different ways. You sure you don’t want to channel Rush Limbaugh and put it in bolded caps?
Bueller?
deegee endeavoring mightily to bring this forum to its knees in righteous observation of his certainty in the Lord says:
6/26/2013 at 8:42 pm
Maybe you should read a bible. /// Forever…. why?
Genesis 5:2 etc.
They were created as a pair, a man and a woman. /// Even if “they” were…. so what?
Matthew 19:5 etc.
A man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife. /// What? Is being unmarried a sin then? Or not the way it was from the beginning? Or some unnatural state ….. or what?
It is clearly stated in the bible that any other relationships such as incest, bigamy, etc. are counted as not the correct thing to do (sin, “missing the mark”). /// I don’t doubt that but how about an example since what you have posted so far is meaningless gibberish?
These people were allowed to do these things, just like people continue to do today, Matthew 19:8 for one example states a reason why it has been allowed so far. /// Because the one wanting the divorce had a “hardened heart?” Ha, ha. You (and Moses)—so stupid. IE–rather a circular reasoning.
Read Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the scriptures of Matthew 19:3-12 for what the bible really says about marriage. /// Why?
One of my best insights FROM THIS VERY FORUM: If the religious could be reasoned with, there wouldn’t be any.
Care to reason?
About fucking time.
Had to sit my gay neighbor down and explain to him how this was a terrible death blow to democracy. And a huge fucking for for a constitutional republic. In a democracy Prop 8 would be law, period, end of story. Take your boo hoo whining and stick you know where. And there would be allowable challenge to it. A pure and true democracy that my other CA comrades like to wave around is nothing but mob/majority rule. If the majority rulled that everyone must die by suicide on their 30th birthday, then it RULES and must be adhered to. If the majority says we can scan the voter registration records so we can find and hang all republicans and democrats for being in a cult? It’s LAW and must be carried out, no allowable challenge is accepted.
But, since we are and always shall be a Constitutional Republic any law or policy that infringes on that constitution in any way shape or form it is null and void.
My neighbors brain melted before he crawled away to tell off all his democracy loving friends.
You misread their reaction. I would buy them something to make up for the time you stole from their lives.
DOMA isn’t dead, it still applies to state that do not recognize gay “marriage”. I have about 30 gay friends (no lesbians because they are just too freakin mean) and they all know I support equal rights for everyone, not gay or straight. I support civil unions but you can’t change the meaning of marriage just because you get a wild hair (or anything else) up your ass.
Equal rights are equal rights.
Stand by for the next round of bullshit in the states that do not recognize so called gay marriage. DOMA still applies in those.
you can’t change the meaning of marriage just because you get a wild hair (or anything else) up your ass.
The definition of “Marriage” in the US used to include “… between two people of the same race.” Now it doesn’t. We changed the definition of marriage.
And how does Adam and Steve getting married affect your marriage? Do tell.
It doesn’t affect my marriage, but it does affect my society.
For years we have admitted as a society that children are better off in a two-parent home. There are loving, single parents who have done a wonderful job, and there are unhealthy, dysfunctional two-parent families. But pointing out exceptions to the rule ignores the rule itself, which stares us directly in the face.
Ideally, children need a healthy father and a healthy mother. They need both, because men and women are different and each one has different things to offer in a child’s upbringing. We used to feel free to admit this rather obvious truth.
Unfortunately, the need to be accepted by friends in a politically correct world results in people shoving truth under a rug. The more children are raised by fathers and mothers together, the better we will all be as a society. You know that. I know that. Everybody knows that.
Many self-described liberals insist we need diversity of genders on the Supreme Court because women will “bring a different perspective” and yet, when these same people are asked about males and females together as role models for children, they suddenly switch gears.
Studies on ancient Rome and other cultures show that when the family breaks down, the entire country breaks down. But then, history always provides 20-20 hindsight.
With all due respect to those desiring same-sex companionship, forcing an affirmation from the entire country will have a rather large influence upon our joint future as Americans.
Bob Siegel
Copy and paste of my answer to Pedrito, same thing.
Your answers have all been BS. We’ve had gay marriage for at least 8 years in Massachusetts and heterosexual homophobes are still getting married, their marriages are still surviving, no fire and brimstone has rained down on us, no one has married their dog. Society hasn’t crumbled. Other countries with gay marriage have had the same results.
The evidence is clear. Gay marriage has not been a threat to the institution of marriage. No one has been able to show ANY harm to anyone.
So why are you idjits still bent out of shape over it?
You want to talk about families “breaking down”, talk about divorce between heterosexual couples. You want to “save” marriage, have the courage of your convictions, have some balls, and try to get divorce banned. Good luck.
But spare us your bigotry disguised as “concern” for “the family”.
I didn’t say it was a threat to marriage so quit trying to change my answer.
I said it was threat to society.
And I’m on record as stating I could care less if they want to get married or not. I personally don’t think government ought to have a say in it. Society will solve the problem itself. Government doesn’t need to stick its nose in it at all.
Oh really. A threat to society. More BS. Go ahead, show us how “society” has been damaged in Massachusetts from having gay marriage for the last 8 years. Show us how the societies of other countries that have gay marriage have been damaged.
Or you could just STFU and stop embarrassing yourself.
You’re fairly short-sighted.
Time will tell.
Rome didn’t fall in 8 years.
It just boggles the mind when people claim that gays getting married is “destroying” marriage and society, while they ignore all the DIVORCES that actually destroy marriages!
The divorced fundies who bitch about gay marriage are particularly disgusting.
You’re straining at gnats while swallowing camels. Divorce actually destroys marriages and affects society, there is rock-solid proof of that. But you ignore that, and focus on gays trying to get married. And there is no evidence that is harming society at all.
Ignoring the obvious facts indicates you’re not thinking rationally, so you’re most likely reacting out of bigotry.
Divorce actually destroys marriages and affects society, there is rock-solid proof of that
Marriages end long before a divorce comes into the picture. Divorce is what happens after the marriage is destroyed. Divorce is not the cause of a failed marriage.
But let’s move on past your logical error and get to the point you are failing miserably at:
Perhaps you are proving our point — If you get a divorce, any kids are no longer are raised by a mom AND a dad.
I have an interesting question for you? Why is the government even involved in marraige in the first place?
Put it like this, if two consenting adults decide to merge their assets, and legal affairs what business is it of the government?
From my point of view every union should be a civil union when dealing with the government. If you should want a “marriage”, then you can go to a church to get one. If having a marriage certificate stamped by the say, the catholic church is so important to you, then you will have to abide by their rules.
I guess most people cant tell the difference between “Holy Matrimony” and Civil Marriage ! Holy Matrimony is for Church-goers, and civil marriage is for those who have progressed beyond the fairy tales that have enslaved civilization for milenia !!! Church-goers should stop TRYING TO IMPOSE THEIR RELIGION ON THE REST OF US !!!
LibertyLover says:
6/27/2013 at 9:46 am
You’re fairly short-sighted. /// Better than blind.
Time will tell. /// No. time simply rolls on, uncaring about stoopid hoomans and their hopes, dreams, and resulting despair.
Rome didn’t fall in 8 years. /// It didn’t fall because of gay marriage either. What an ass wipe trying to hide your anti-gay (marriage) fears and misconceptions behind a totally bogus representation of History.
LL–do you think ANYTHING in the course of human affairs is so simple as to be given direction by one factor and one factor alone? Connect your dots for us: HOW does gay marriage/relationships negatively affect a society? True or not, it is often commented that gay relationships in the Spartan Army made in one of the fiercest fighting machines ever known. Imagine being in LOVE with the guy in the foxhole with you? How hard would you fight for your society then.
confront your issues DIRECTLY.
Stop the BULL SHIT.
Thank Me!
I was starting to feel lonesome here, no worship and all.
Thanks, booger!
That was rather ironic: asking Bullshit to stop the Bullshit. Thats like asking Alfie to stop being irrelevant.
More worship! Lovin’ it!
Let’s supposed Mark Perkel organized an anti-surveillance proposition to be put on the ballot, arranging for millions of signatures. It wins with 90% of the vote. Meanwhile Dianne Feinstein and Condoleeza Rice are elected governor and attorney general.
Someone files a lawsuit against Perkel’s anti-surveillance bill, and Governor Feinstein and Atty Gen Rice refuse to defend it in court. So Mark Perkel then hires his own attorneys out of pocket to make the case, but still loses with the presiding judge having a wife in training at NSA. Then he appeals to the 9th Circuit and loses again, but then appeals to the Supreme Court. There the Court says Perkel has no business bringing the case, only the state executive branch can appear in court.
That is roughly what the California ruling is.
I can’t get a better analogy for what to do next, unless the measure is all NSA employees must wear a scarlet letter. Then the correct result is the law cannot be thrown out as there was noone in court to argue the state’s case, but the named employees who filed the lawsuit can get a default judgment that they are not required to wear the scarlet letter.
Just the thought of what gays do disgusts me. But if we can allow millions of lawbreakers amnesty for their crimes we can also allow gays legal rights under the law. Given a choice, I’d chose a gay any day.
Grandpa, I enjoy the lesbian sexual acts. I think you are being anal. HA