Well, I know I'm probably a minority in saying this, but I'm disappointed - not because I don't think everyone should have access to the government rights attached to marriage, but because it seems our country doesn't actually want to fix problems at the root.
What is the root problem? People on both sides of the debate agree (if given the option) that the government probably never should have messed with marriage, at least not as the cultural/religious thing that it is.
In a nation where we care so much about the separation of church (broadly defined to include ideologies that may not be formal religions) and state, I don't understand why we're seeking to only expand that connection.
What should happen is the government should stop defining marriage of any form (leave that to religion or personal tradition), and simply define all these rights under civil union (or a similar phrase with no significant religious/cultural attachment).
For me and a lot of friends and family, marriage equality. Yay.
"It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality . . . Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them. And the Equal Protection Clause, like the Due Process Clause, prohibits this unjustified infringement of the fundamental right to marry." (page 22, from the coverage on SCOTUSBlog)
For others, the opinion also reasserted that people who are really mad about this can continue to be mad and vocal about it, as guaranteed by the First Amendment.
"Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate." (page ~32)
I'm glad that my LBG friends can now marry anywhere. But damn, Scalia's counter opinion (and Roberts' opinion) strike me as well-considered and well-argued in the 2nd half of http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf . In brief, their view was that resolving this issue in the courts erodes the democratic process.
Can anybody counter Scalia, and say why the issue of gay marriage couldn't wait to be resolved by the states? Why is this class of license inequity different than other classes, where the states' right to license something is not resolved by SCOTUS?
> opinion also reasserted that people who are really mad about this can continue to be mad and vocal about it, as guaranteed by the First Amendment
Was this a question? I don't think I've heard anyone ever say otherwise.
I'll add though, that people long have cloaked oppression in religion. People justified (and still justify) slavery, segregation, and oppression of women under the guise of religion, for example. Some might have been sincere (not that it justifies oppressing others), but for some the 'ultimate' authority of their God is an effective defense against any mortal criticism.
EDIT: To be clear, this is not a problem with religion in particular. I'm only discussing religion because that's the issue on the table. Thanks to chrisguilbeau for pointing that out; I agree with his comment below.
So what happens to clergy who refuse to perform such "weddings" on religious grounds? All major religions have at least a majority, if not uniform, disapproval of "marrying" any other than man & woman. We already have cases of punishing & re-educating bakers for adhering to their religious views on the subject, how much more so those who may face compulsion to perform a union they cannot religiously condone?
ETA: to wit, how to reconcile the court's ruling with the court's claim none will be compelled to facilitate such unions against their faith?
The four dissenting opinions in this case are interesting. They deal mainly with the fact that, strictly, such pronouncements are not within the authority of the Supreme Court. They are correct, in a sense. But by that logic, Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. V. U.S. (1964) should not be; by that logic, we should have waited for America to realize, of its own volition in 50 states, that allowing a business to deny a black man a hotel room is fundamentally wrong. But for the group wronged -- consider the same-sex couples facing the death of a spouse, the endless and expensive legal hurdles, or the millions of black Americans who couldn't sit at a lunch counter -- waiting for all 50 states to come to the right conclusion is cruel. No, the court has a moral obligation, where it can, to stand up for the people for whom justice for all would come too late. It's certainly not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. But the Founders were not infallible, were not seers of the future; it is just as incongruous to hold them responsible for their failures as it is to hold us responsible for our failures we have not yet realized.
I think Kennedy knew this was going to be read by far more laypersons than a typical opinion, and wrote it accordingly. It reads like a FAQ, going through all the common objections and concerns one by one and addressing them in order.
While this is excellent news for my gay and lesbian friends, I see no progress on polygamy.
Which, unlike same-sex marriage, is an institution with deep roots both in America (the Mormons were forced to give up this sacrament as a condition of statehood) and in the majority of world cultures, where it ranges from condoned to celebrated.
Without getting unduly personal, let's say that I have a stake in that question being resolved. I know several triples living quietly among us; they face the same kind of problems (child custody, hospital visitation, inheritance rights) as same-sex couples faced prior to this decision.
What the polygamists of the nation lack is a powerful lobby. <shrug> One may hope that nonetheless, reason and freedom will prevail here as well.
EDIT: nation, not world. Worldwide the situation is different. America is suffering from its Christian legacy here. Most Christian countries are adamant about denying this right to their citizens.
I have no problem with polygamy, as long as it is a consensual relationship between all adults involved.
The real problem is that government has gotten into the marriage business and it doesn't belong there. The issues you mentioned (child custody, hospital visitation, inheritance rights) really have nothing to do with marriage and should all be assignable without a government endorsed marital contract.
One problem I have with Polygamy is that I have never seen a 1-woman, multi-husband community. Sure, I've seen a few relationships in which this was the case, but when you look at the historic aspects in the US, it seems a very rare thing. That makes me wonder if there is a severe power imbalance in the relationships and what is truly occurring.
It's well known that in some modern US polygamy situations, there is a great deal of abuse of power, both in terms of controlling the wives, as well as controlling and abusing the young men who will not be allowed to have a wife. This further increases the societal costs and leads to more abuse of power, which is not what we need.
edit: I should add: It's a numbers game. Given that on average, there tends to be just slightly more women born than men, what happens with all the extra unmarried men (or women, though this is rarer)?
>Without getting unduly personal, let's say that I have a stake in that question being resolved. I know several triples living quietly among us; they face the same kind of problems (child custody, hospital visitation, inheritance rights) as same-sex couples faced prior to this decision.
I made that argument to a couple of friends - that they were not fighting for equality (which will be fairly easy to set up) but for inclusion in the privileged club. They responded with "Well marriage is between couples, but defining the sex of the participants is discriminatory".
One of the problems with polygamy/andry is that we could hollow out the lower social classes of mating opportunities (it happens in india and china right now due to girl infanticide and it is not pretty).
Legalized polygamy could create a lot interesting legal issues, particularly marriages of convenience. It would challenge a lot of traditional legal structures that assume a union between two people. If there is no restriction on how many people you can marry at once then you can start giving out residence rights via marriage or multiple wealthy individuals can amass large estates via marriage. I am sure there is a lot more.
This is not meant as an argument against legalized polygamy, rather to point out some of the obstacles it faces.
I don't have any moral objections to poly-marriage, but I don't think it's the same thing as gay marriage. Prohibition of gay marriage is rooted in the identity of individuals, but prohibition of polygamy is based on the amount of participants in the union. No one is discriminated against in the face of poly-marraige prohibition because it has nothing to do with the traits of any individual.
But the idea that "the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage" is pretty laughable.
Does anyone really believe this right was in the Constitution for 250 years, only to be discovered recently? In reality public opinion and culture changed, and 5 justices decided to change the law.
In my lifetime, I think this is the social issue that has seen the most positive change.
As a kid, gay people were practically lepers.
Eleven Years ago, Dave Chappelle just outright said "gay sex is just gross, sorry it just is", and it was considered funny and acceptable. (Not harping on him specifically, just pointing out what it was like in 2004)
Seven years ago prop 8 passed, if barely with some caveats about lack of understanding.
And now? SCOTUS upholds gay marriage and it's socially reprehensible to mock homosexuality. It's a strange and very positive feeling watching a country's world view shift like this.
I've never really given credence to the people that suggested a ruling would be a slippery slope. However, after reading the opinion for myself, I can see how the court's stance on marriage (opposite-sex and same-sex) can now be extended to polygamy and incest. I understand the need to define it as a fundamental right within the context of this ruling, but it seems that some of the wording opens the way for other marriage relationships that are not explicitly defined in the court's opinion.
Incest - maybe. There's a clear harm involved there (inbreeding depression) that's much more substantive than anything used to argue against gay marriage.
Polygamy - We probably will revisit our stance on polygamy in decades to come. Historically it's been used in a way that's profoundly imbalanced towards women (i.e. almost exclusively polygyny), but it's not hard to imagine a future where that's not the case.
> However, after reading the opinion for myself, I can see how the court's stance on marriage (opposite-sex and same-sex) can now be extended to polygamy and incest.
Good. If only they (or society) would decide that no consenting people need permission from anyone else to call themselves "married."
Incest is legal in France since 1810 - and the new law from 2010 that seem to forbid it really doesn't. It's some additional protection law for minors.
As far as I can tell, it didn't lead to the entire French population growing an additional eye (and I doubt that incest rates are extraordinary in the first place), so the impact of lifting that ban probably isn't all that bad.
Agreed. The "slippery slope" arguments always seemed weak to me, yet it didn't take long for polygamy comments to pop up here. So seems like they weren't that weak after all...
This talk about "church's definition of marriage", etc. is a red herring, and just a couched way of saying "we don't like homosexuality and homosexual behavior".
I got married in India. In a ceremony presided over by a local priest. There was no "church" involved. But guess what? No Christian here (in the US) has ever doubted the authenticity of my marriage.
And then I got divorced in the US. The courts here had no problem recognizing my marriage, even though it was performed in some other country, by some unknown religious authority. The officials had no hesitation in breaking up this marriage. Why don't we require the Church's blessing to break up a marriage (I am aware that Catholics have a certain process of appealing to the Pope, but not all churches do)?
If you don't support the idea of the government getting involved in marriage, you shouldn't support the idea of government-approved divorces either! Go to your church and get a divorce!
One of the interesting thing is how severe disagreements are between the supreme court judges[1]. You might think these judges are debating with cold logical arguments and finally either understand other person's argument or be able to convince others of theirs. Instead what we are seeing is judges literally and personally attacking other judges in same panel and accusing them to derail the very constitution and democracy they are expected to protect. Can they make any ore serious accusations? It's also very interesting that judge votes were highly predictable based on their political leanings and which administration appointed them. This just boggled my mind. First, why we should allow any person strongly conforming to any political ideology as a supreme court judge? Why a political leader who almost always have represented as head of certain political ideology be able to even appoint a supreme court judge?
I'm a straight conservative (more fiscal than social, and sure as hell not Republican any more), and my reaction to this is: "meh". The writing has been on the wall for a while now, and anybody surprised by this hasn't been paying attention.
Any social conservatives on HN -- that is to say, both of you -- should keep in mind that if you're worried about how this affects the sanctity of marriage, that institution has long since been sullied by a) allowing government to get involved with it, b) easily-obtainable divorces and c) that whole Henry VIII business. Same-sex couples can't possibly do any more damage than that.
Of the threats to American culture or even Western Civilization as a whole, the SSM boogeyman pales in comparison to a feckless electorate, unaccountable government with Big Brother aspirations, crushing debt and even Islamic extremists.
That's why my reaction is "meh": as a "problem", SSM isn't even on the radar.
I guess we found each other. The things that irritate me the most is that people believe that marriage is a right. It is not. It is a government granted legal status privilege. The privilege grants those recognized as married numerous benefits. Now, with that said, I can't see why allowing any two consenting adults who wish to extend the government recognized benefits to each other should be infringed. One question though is, what benefit does the state/government gain from [recognizing] marriage? I think the quickest and easiest answer is that a) two people sharing and taking care of each other is beneficial [to society] and b) should a divorce occur, the state can get involved ensuring that a[n ex-]spouse is treated fairly and taken care of.
ADD: Also, people keep mixing love and marriage. While the two often go hand in hand that isn't always the case.
> That's why my reaction is "meh": as a "problem", SSM isn't even on the radar.
I realize I'm approaching the question from a different angle than you are, but I want to point out that it was a very big problem for gay and lesbian Americans and their loved ones.
"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies
the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice,
and family. In forming a marital union, two people become
something greater than once they were. As some of
the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage
embodies a love that may endure even past death. It
would misunderstand these men and women to say they
disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do
respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its
fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned
to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s
oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the
eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."
Yeah, I'm still slightly pissed they basically waited until the majority was clear before they'd rule on the matter. Its another clear sign our Judiciary is really just as political as the politicians are, even if no one says so openly.
> As late as October, the justices ducked the issue, refusing to hear appeals from rulings allowing same-sex marriage in five states. That decision delivered a tacit victory for gay rights, immediately expanding the number of states with same-sex marriage to 24, along with the District of Columbia, up from 19.
> Largely as a consequence of the Supreme Court’s decision not to act, the number of states allowing same-sex marriage has since grown to 36, and more than 70 percent of Americans live in places where gay couples can marry.
Great news. Glad this won't be an issue going into the next presidential election. There's been so much time wasted on this issue when, at the end of the day, any 2 consenting adults should have all of the same rights as any other 2 consenting adults (barring felony conviction, poor mental health eval, etc).
As a straight Christian who isn't against gay marriage, I agree, but I know the energy that the "church" puts into opposing it is why it as required this much energy. There are so many issues deserving of the church's time and energy (divorce rates, addiction, child trafficking, etc) yet too many are stuck on this one.
It's possible to pay attention to more than one thing at a time. Just because drought in California is much more serious problem than Vibrio vulnificus in the Baltic Sea doesn't mean we should disregard bacterias altogether. Gay rights are not a distraction from Something More Important, it's just one of many issues that have to be taken care of in parallel.
What's more important. Denial of a basic social rite to the 5-10% who are gay, or something like NSA spying that gets tremendous attention on places like HN but only has a material impact on almost nobody?
I'm sad to see this happen, not because LGBTs can marry, in my personal opinion I think they should be able to. I just dislike systems in general that force any global mandate and prefer those in which entities can freely compete against one another to decide between one another what works and what doesn't. The two party, winner takes all system the USA has right now, is already too totalitarian IMHO, this just seems like another step in that direction.
I think in the long term all less efficient, less happiness producing systems will loose out anyway. All you need to do is ensure that your system protects the minority enough so that they can freely compete and coexists with all the rest.
But I'm a libertarian, so I think all laws regarding sexual relations between consenting adults should be repealed whether gay or straight...
Not just because I'm a lesbian (I'm happily single, so no marriage for me regardless), but because it's a fundamental right that shouldn't be denied to anyone. It really warms my heart that everyone can finally marry the people they love.
I think they summarise their arguments themselves. For example
"Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition."
Don't get the tl;dr summary of Scalia's dissent; actually read it. Scalia is obnoxious and mean-spirited (and in fine form this time), but he's a really good writer, the fun- to- read kind.
IIRC, he wrote a book on writing with Brian Garner, of usage dictionary fame.
[+] [-] curiousgeorgio|10 years ago|reply
What is the root problem? People on both sides of the debate agree (if given the option) that the government probably never should have messed with marriage, at least not as the cultural/religious thing that it is.
In a nation where we care so much about the separation of church (broadly defined to include ideologies that may not be formal religions) and state, I don't understand why we're seeking to only expand that connection.
What should happen is the government should stop defining marriage of any form (leave that to religion or personal tradition), and simply define all these rights under civil union (or a similar phrase with no significant religious/cultural attachment).
[+] [-] mkr-hn|10 years ago|reply
"It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality . . . Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them. And the Equal Protection Clause, like the Due Process Clause, prohibits this unjustified infringement of the fundamental right to marry." (page 22, from the coverage on SCOTUSBlog)
For others, the opinion also reasserted that people who are really mad about this can continue to be mad and vocal about it, as guaranteed by the First Amendment.
"Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate." (page ~32)
The full majority opinion [PDF]: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
[+] [-] quizotic|10 years ago|reply
Can anybody counter Scalia, and say why the issue of gay marriage couldn't wait to be resolved by the states? Why is this class of license inequity different than other classes, where the states' right to license something is not resolved by SCOTUS?
[+] [-] hackuser|10 years ago|reply
Was this a question? I don't think I've heard anyone ever say otherwise.
I'll add though, that people long have cloaked oppression in religion. People justified (and still justify) slavery, segregation, and oppression of women under the guise of religion, for example. Some might have been sincere (not that it justifies oppressing others), but for some the 'ultimate' authority of their God is an effective defense against any mortal criticism.
EDIT: To be clear, this is not a problem with religion in particular. I'm only discussing religion because that's the issue on the table. Thanks to chrisguilbeau for pointing that out; I agree with his comment below.
[+] [-] ctdonath|10 years ago|reply
ETA: to wit, how to reconcile the court's ruling with the court's claim none will be compelled to facilitate such unions against their faith?
[+] [-] intopieces|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raldi|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samatman|10 years ago|reply
Which, unlike same-sex marriage, is an institution with deep roots both in America (the Mormons were forced to give up this sacrament as a condition of statehood) and in the majority of world cultures, where it ranges from condoned to celebrated.
Without getting unduly personal, let's say that I have a stake in that question being resolved. I know several triples living quietly among us; they face the same kind of problems (child custody, hospital visitation, inheritance rights) as same-sex couples faced prior to this decision.
What the polygamists of the nation lack is a powerful lobby. <shrug> One may hope that nonetheless, reason and freedom will prevail here as well.
EDIT: nation, not world. Worldwide the situation is different. America is suffering from its Christian legacy here. Most Christian countries are adamant about denying this right to their citizens.
[+] [-] IanDrake|10 years ago|reply
The real problem is that government has gotten into the marriage business and it doesn't belong there. The issues you mentioned (child custody, hospital visitation, inheritance rights) really have nothing to do with marriage and should all be assignable without a government endorsed marital contract.
[+] [-] sgnelson|10 years ago|reply
It's well known that in some modern US polygamy situations, there is a great deal of abuse of power, both in terms of controlling the wives, as well as controlling and abusing the young men who will not be allowed to have a wife. This further increases the societal costs and leads to more abuse of power, which is not what we need.
edit: I should add: It's a numbers game. Given that on average, there tends to be just slightly more women born than men, what happens with all the extra unmarried men (or women, though this is rarer)?
[+] [-] venomsnake|10 years ago|reply
I made that argument to a couple of friends - that they were not fighting for equality (which will be fairly easy to set up) but for inclusion in the privileged club. They responded with "Well marriage is between couples, but defining the sex of the participants is discriminatory".
One of the problems with polygamy/andry is that we could hollow out the lower social classes of mating opportunities (it happens in india and china right now due to girl infanticide and it is not pretty).
Anyway - congratulations to the winners.
[+] [-] mchaver|10 years ago|reply
This is not meant as an argument against legalized polygamy, rather to point out some of the obstacles it faces.
[+] [-] k__|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vectorpush|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Void_|10 years ago|reply
HN Headline: Polygamy upheld by supreme court
Comment:
While this is excellent news for my polygamous friends, I see no progress on [insert new deviation here].
---
So what do you all think will be the next big thing?
[+] [-] baddox|10 years ago|reply
Or indeed, on the fundamental issue, which is the need to get permission from a tiny group of powerful people in order to get married.
[+] [-] BurningFrog|10 years ago|reply
But the idea that "the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage" is pretty laughable.
Does anyone really believe this right was in the Constitution for 250 years, only to be discovered recently? In reality public opinion and culture changed, and 5 justices decided to change the law.
[+] [-] baakss|10 years ago|reply
As a kid, gay people were practically lepers.
Eleven Years ago, Dave Chappelle just outright said "gay sex is just gross, sorry it just is", and it was considered funny and acceptable. (Not harping on him specifically, just pointing out what it was like in 2004)
Seven years ago prop 8 passed, if barely with some caveats about lack of understanding.
And now? SCOTUS upholds gay marriage and it's socially reprehensible to mock homosexuality. It's a strange and very positive feeling watching a country's world view shift like this.
[+] [-] agd|10 years ago|reply
Unfortunately it's still legal in many states to discriminate against employees on the basis of sexual orientation. Hopefully that's next to be fixed.
[+] [-] jscheel|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FlannelPancake|10 years ago|reply
Polygamy - We probably will revisit our stance on polygamy in decades to come. Historically it's been used in a way that's profoundly imbalanced towards women (i.e. almost exclusively polygyny), but it's not hard to imagine a future where that's not the case.
[+] [-] baddox|10 years ago|reply
Good. If only they (or society) would decide that no consenting people need permission from anyone else to call themselves "married."
[+] [-] pgeorgi|10 years ago|reply
As far as I can tell, it didn't lead to the entire French population growing an additional eye (and I doubt that incest rates are extraordinary in the first place), so the impact of lifting that ban probably isn't all that bad.
[+] [-] ohitsdom|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajays|10 years ago|reply
This talk about "church's definition of marriage", etc. is a red herring, and just a couched way of saying "we don't like homosexuality and homosexual behavior".
I got married in India. In a ceremony presided over by a local priest. There was no "church" involved. But guess what? No Christian here (in the US) has ever doubted the authenticity of my marriage.
And then I got divorced in the US. The courts here had no problem recognizing my marriage, even though it was performed in some other country, by some unknown religious authority. The officials had no hesitation in breaking up this marriage. Why don't we require the Church's blessing to break up a marriage (I am aware that Catholics have a certain process of appealing to the Pope, but not all churches do)?
If you don't support the idea of the government getting involved in marriage, you shouldn't support the idea of government-approved divorces either! Go to your church and get a divorce!
[+] [-] sytelus|10 years ago|reply
1. http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/marriage-same-...
[+] [-] MrZongle2|10 years ago|reply
Any social conservatives on HN -- that is to say, both of you -- should keep in mind that if you're worried about how this affects the sanctity of marriage, that institution has long since been sullied by a) allowing government to get involved with it, b) easily-obtainable divorces and c) that whole Henry VIII business. Same-sex couples can't possibly do any more damage than that.
Of the threats to American culture or even Western Civilization as a whole, the SSM boogeyman pales in comparison to a feckless electorate, unaccountable government with Big Brother aspirations, crushing debt and even Islamic extremists.
That's why my reaction is "meh": as a "problem", SSM isn't even on the radar.
[+] [-] jrs235|10 years ago|reply
ADD: Also, people keep mixing love and marriage. While the two often go hand in hand that isn't always the case.
[+] [-] hackuser|10 years ago|reply
I realize I'm approaching the question from a different angle than you are, but I want to point out that it was a very big problem for gay and lesbian Americans and their loved ones.
[+] [-] th0br0|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] malkia|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fweespeech|10 years ago|reply
> As late as October, the justices ducked the issue, refusing to hear appeals from rulings allowing same-sex marriage in five states. That decision delivered a tacit victory for gay rights, immediately expanding the number of states with same-sex marriage to 24, along with the District of Columbia, up from 19.
> Largely as a consequence of the Supreme Court’s decision not to act, the number of states allowing same-sex marriage has since grown to 36, and more than 70 percent of Americans live in places where gay couples can marry.
[+] [-] slayed0|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tosseraccount|10 years ago|reply
Polygamy is the next hurdle for society.
The judges should declare all consenting marriage legal !
[+] [-] pavanky|10 years ago|reply
I understand the social consequences. But what legal rights have been granted now that did not exist previously ?
[+] [-] tptacek|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] troycarlson|10 years ago|reply
Edit: To clarify, I support marriage equality and believe this is great news that deserves celebrating.
[+] [-] ebbv|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bdcravens|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DominikD|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 4tacos|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jfaucett|10 years ago|reply
I think in the long term all less efficient, less happiness producing systems will loose out anyway. All you need to do is ensure that your system protects the minority enough so that they can freely compete and coexists with all the rest.
But I'm a libertarian, so I think all laws regarding sexual relations between consenting adults should be repealed whether gay or straight...
[+] [-] amyjess|10 years ago|reply
Not just because I'm a lesbian (I'm happily single, so no marriage for me regardless), but because it's a fundamental right that shouldn't be denied to anyone. It really warms my heart that everyone can finally marry the people they love.
[+] [-] Lawtonfogle|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmilloy|10 years ago|reply
"Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition."
[p. 2 of Robert's opinion, p. 41 of the pdf] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
[+] [-] tptacek|10 years ago|reply
IIRC, he wrote a book on writing with Brian Garner, of usage dictionary fame.
[+] [-] dsr_|10 years ago|reply
Scalia: The Supreme Court has too much power any time it does not agree with me.
Thomas: Due Process doesn't include right to be married.
Alito: Power in this matter is reserved to the States individually. Also, the Supreme Court has too much power any time it does not agree with me.
[+] [-] FlannelPancake|10 years ago|reply