I haven’t read much about the decision but doesn’t this seem like a state issue rather than federal?
^ no.
Okay… So is this an interstate commerce issue or something?
What is the criteria used to make this a federal issue?
It is depressing that when a decision comes down that a group doesn’t like suddenly the court is taking over and exercising imperialistic powers.
What I’m waiting for now is for AT&T or some other such behemoth to realize that since corporations are now people and they can now marry someone (or merge with someone) like them the anti-trust laws are infringing on their freedom of intimacy. Now THAT would be pure argle bargle.
Vladenschlutte – the 14th Amendment. You shld read the decision. It is available on-line.
How is anything different? The constitutional freedom applies to CONSENTING adults. Just as before, NONconsent = sexual assault.
I live in the Bible belt and my FB feed has been kind of interesting. I didn’t notice any negative posts on Friday and then just a few yesterday (but they were strong ones). This morning, quite a few more. On one hand, I could unfriend those I consider unenlightened, but then how would I know their positions and those who jump on the bandwagon by liking or commenting. It certainly provides an interesting window on the world.
Vladenschlutte: The Fourteenth Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states. No state may “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The Court says that in allowing straight couples, but not gay couples, to marry, a state would be denying equal protection to the gay couple. Laws have to apply equally to everybody.
@GMTplus7 post #263 was meant to be tongue in cheek
Ben and Jerry’s ice cream for summer: I Dough, I Dough.
Scalia also thinks states should be allowed to make gay sex illegal; he dissented in Lawrence v. Texas. So did Thomas. So, um, yeah.
I never liked Thomas back in Anita Hill days. However, I like Roberts, he seems like a real decent guy, without his vote, I’m sure we would have this thread.
@Vladenschlutte :
The 14th amendment as well as SCOTUS decisions in the 19th century extended the constitution to the states. For example,After the founding of the US, several states had state religions, which became illegal because the first amendment does not allow that.
Marriage itself is up to the states (which is why DOMA was illegal from the moment is was signed, congress has no right to decide what a legal marriage is), however, state marriage laws are subject to constitutional review. The 14th amendment says you cannot deny a right or privilege to citizens or more importantly groups of citizens if you give that right to others, pure and simple. People then try to bring up things like the 21 drinking age, old people needing to take eye tests and the like, but what the constitution says is that rights can be burdened (ie restricted), but there needs to be clear proof why that should be. With kids drinking, there is clear proof that under 21 kids get involved in drunk driving and other problems with alcohol at higher rates than older people. Old folk’s vision deteriorates as they get older, can be quite significant, and that visual acuity issue is dangerous.
The reason same sex marriage cannot be denied is because none of the opponents can come up with a credible argument against it, one that stands up to scrutiny, the only arguments they have are tradition, drivel about procreating kids and opposite sex parents being better for kids, and in reality, the only argument against it is they believe it is a sin, so therefore should not be legal, and belief despite what fox news claims, is not a basis for law, as one of my idols says, people have the right to their own beliefs, but not their own facts. In effect, the constitution says you have the right to do as you wish, that is the natural position, unless someone can show clear and present proof that in doing so would cause others harm. God being displeased, the wrath of the Catholic hierarchy, the belief of fundies that God is gonna wipe out the earth, don’t matter one wit, and claiming ‘having same sex marriage violates my beliefs, so is the first amendment’ is laughable (okay, so what about the churches and temples and high priestesses and priests, who believe same sex marriage is perfectly valid in the eyes of the divine?What gives your belief any special provenance, because you believe the ‘true’ faith?).
The next time someone who is conservative tells me that it is unfair conservatives are being smeared as ignorant, bible thumping cretins and trash,haters, ranters, etc I’ll point him to the 4 dissents in this case and ask him or her to tell me what is so intellectual or reasonable about what they wrote? I have seen badly written decisions, but this one takes the cake.
Now, of course, we have a new rallying cry from the idiotic right, Bobby Jindal and others are now squawking “let’s get rid of the supreme court and let the people rule”…does that moron realize that if we didn’t have a supreme court, that his parents might not have been allowed to immigrate to the US, and more importantly, in lousiana he likely would not be allowed to vote or be able to run for office? Does that moron even understand how dangerous ‘will of the people’ can be and why we have a constitution and SCOTUS?
Had to laugh at this one:
@"Cardinal Fang:
Yep, he did and Scalia’s dissent was just as scathing, he basically outright says that religious morality is perfectly acceptable as law, that the state has an interest in regulating private morality. God help us, literally, if he was in a majority, I can just imagine the other things we would see, selling birth control made illegal, blue laws forcing people to go to church on Sunday, I can just imagine. On top of everything else, he is a theocrat, which is amazing in this day and age. Harvard Law School should take away his law degree, they should hang their heads in shame that he got his degree there for this one.
And it is very ironic when Scalia called this a “Putsch”, I guess the fact that for so many centuries religion has been used as a club in this country, to censor books, to censor films, to deny people rights and so forth, was not a putsch, but ‘freedom’ sigh.
Fang #270 – And yet in Friday’s ruling, Scalia says “The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me” which is pretty hard to square with Lawrence v. Texas. So odd.
Perhaps most high-profile cases are now no longer about the substance of the decree in Scalia’s mind, but about a power struggle happening within in the Court, because he goes on to say, “It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.” IMO That wording, and the word Ruler (capitalized, no less) is more than a little bizarre in a SCOTUS opinion. Does he actually not remember the many times he has done that himself – voted with the majority which resulted in a change to a “Rule”?
@musicprnt -Jindal was taking a clear cue from the four dissenters, who all in one way or another invited people who didn’t like the ruling to challenge the legitimacy of the Court itself. Among the politicians, Jindal wasn’t alone, he was merely the worst. A number of governors said outright that they wouldn’t follow the Court’s order.
This is beyond shocking, when elected officials feel free to publicly defy the Supreme Court. And yeah, really really dangerous.
Yes, it is dangerous, even if it is just rhetoric, they are laying the groundwork for a constitutional battle. Put it this way, outside the GOP base and the Koch Brothers, a large majority of Americans feel that the Citizens United ruling was a disaster, that we need to reign in the influence of big money in elections and that corporations are not people (And interesting how Scalia could say the 9 members of the court ‘rule the country’, when he and his fellow judges overturned centuries of law and decided that corporations had the right to unlimited power in this country…
It will be interesting to see how Obama handles all this. When SCOTUS threw out segregation in Brown Vs Board of Ed (a decision many so called conservatives still claim was illegal), Eisenhower, not exactly a radical, was willing to use troops to enforce the law. When you have governors and state attorney generals saying they won’t abide by the decision, they are committing a treasonable offense, they sign oaths to defend and obey the constitution and they cannot claim that the Supreme Court doesn’t have that right, the constitution gives that power to the judiciary, specifically the Supreme court, and they can and should be removed from office for violating their oaths. I doubt Obama has the brass to do that, I am sure we will hear how we have to be patient, that people have to come around, but defiance of SCOTUS decisions by elected officials is a criminal action and should be treated as such.
That decision was 9-0, so refuseniks had nothing to hang their hats on. This court seems to relish its role in dividing the country.
Agree with everything in your post. And I agree that treason is not too strong a word.
Just saw something really disturbing at Target. There was an endcap which featured marquee-style lights, arranged alphabetically. I noticed a young man standing there moving the lights around and when I got closer, I saw that on the second shelf he had formed the word GAYS. On the top shelf there were other out- of-place letters, including “I” and “L”. He hadn’t formed a word yet, but I suspect it was nothing nice, because when he saw me looking he scurried away. I put the letters back where they belonged and told a store manager about it.
Did Scalia et al cause this young man’s bigotry? No . But they give him sanction, and they give him cover.