My kid is going to SF for gay/lesbian pride parade. She told me this before this decision came out, I’m now worried the crowd will be more worse, hopeful she has friends with her.
^ But how much fun will that be at this historical moment? I hope she takes photos!
On the down side when my state was one of the few it increased the odds of getting my kid back after college. 
Agree that people can choose to have children. But when they are paid close to a million dollars to be the ambassador against teen pregnancy it seems just a tad hypocritical. Oh well, at least she is no longer a teenager. So much for the abstinence campaign. http://www.inquisitr.com/2203203/bristol-palin-made-close-to-1-million-pushing-abstinence-only-policies-now-is-pregnant-with-child-no-2/
Hurray for the Supreme court, who made a good decision today.
I’m sad that this decision came on a day when spouse has the car out of town. I’d LOVE to be in Ann Arbor right now.
I could probably ask someone to come pick me up. Hmm…
@saintfan if you did want a kitty picture still…: (but your picture is one of my favorites)
http://allthingse.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/8022_10101427890009004_627585157_n.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/82/f5/16/82f516a508a89b62a9dbaeea36b6297c.jpg
https://carolynmantia.files.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2013/06/equal-crazy-cat.jpg
@jym626, Agree with you there. Yay for marriage equality! Boo for hypocrites! (Not sure why folks thought she would be the ideal spokesperson or why she was worth that kind of paycheck? Boggles one’s mind.)
@romanigypsyeyes I like the first cat pic best. He looks the happiest and this is a time for rejoicing.
Great avatar, saintfan. 
Fair, @doschicos. I do have a soft spot for grumpy cat though.
It is a political issue - Supreme Court justices are appointed by presidents of one party or the other.
(I have to laugh at romani’s post - so grandma wouldn’t want to get great-grandbabies if her granddaughter and partner didn’t get married? Tolerance reaches so far LOL.)
I do think that there are certain topics which are “historical” and certain folks cling to their or their religious adviser’s view of “my way is right”. You can think of this in some ways like the SCOTUS saying that the Roman Catholic church MUST allow women to become priests - because in some people’s minds, this is 100% about religion and 0% about government, and their right to freedom of religion.
(I’ve mentioned before that the government should not be in the marriage business anyway, but that’s not a fight I would win.)
What are you talking about? What am I missing? The SCOTUS would never rule that the Roman Catholic church must allow women to become priests. They also aren’t going to rule that an Orthodox Jewish rabbi has to marry a Jew and a Catholic, or that a Catholic priest need officiate at a same-sex wedding.
Very pleased with the decision!
@rhandco no you misunderstood the comment. She wants great grandbabies and she figures that’s the next step after marriage.
The government can’t tell a religion that it has to recognize X marriage type. It’s about what the GOVERNMENT recognizes. There is no parallel here between a legal marriage and women priests.
So happy! Long overdue. Finally!
My daughter is going to the Pride parade in London tomorrow and I think this makes it even more exciting!
If anyone has Snapchat, there is a long story on there with video clips from all over the country- pride flags, wedding ceremonies, proposals, politicians, etc. It is so worth watching.
Six of the Supreme Court Justices are Roman Catholics. I’m pretty sure they aren’t going to rule that Catholic priests must marry same-sex couples 
Dr. Google, S1 will also be there for SF Pride tomorrow. My sons are so thrilled with this news.
Who would have imagined back in 1987 when Reagan appointed Kennedy – at that time one of the most conservative judges in the country – that he would have turned out to be one of the most important civil rights figures of our time on this issue. Really amazing.
I’m sort of surprised by Roberts. His opinion is totally in keeping with his judicial philosophy, but I thought that he might have felt the weight of history bearing down on him and might have been more greatly swayed by the specter of having his long-term legacy marred by being on the wrong side of history on this. He’s still young by SCOTUS standards; given how fast things have changed he has to know how inevitable this decision will seem 20 years from now. He has to be thinking abt how thoroughly Justice White’s reputation was destroyed by Bowers v Hardwick.
The last paragraph – where he acknowledges that the country will be celebrating the majority’s opinion – suggested that he may have some legacy-angst going on (but maybe I’m just projecting). Also, he didn’t join any of the other dissents. I think he is going to come to regret not joining the majority opinion. Or, at least, he’ll regret not having carved out some milquetoast middle position. (Believe me, I’m no fan of Roberts, and I’m not generally surprised by his opinions that I disagree with).
better?
Nooo @saintfan I loved your last one. I was just using it as an excuse to post kitty pictures
<<<
Six of the Supreme Court Justices are Roman Catholics. I’m pretty sure they aren’t going to rule that Catholic priests must marry same-sex couples
[QUOTE=""]
[/QUOTE]
True, but I doubt that the non-Catholic SCJ’s would rule that Catholic priests must marry same-sex couples either. That’s above their pay-grade.