Gay Marriage Upheld by Supreme Court in Close Ruling

J

Josiah

Senior Member
Location
50 miles east of Cincinnati, OH
The final paragraph of Justice Kennedy's majority ruling is very moving:

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.
 

Interesting result.

Some more here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...age-ruled-legal-across-the-United-States.html

The Supreme Court today ruled that gay marriage should be allowed across the entire United States, settling once and for all one of America's most divisive social questions. The landmark ruling from America's high court means that all states, even in the deeply conservative South, must allow same-sex couples to marry.

The decision was met with cheers and weeping from gay rights activists gathered on the on the marble steps of the Supreme Court.

The ruling represents an extraordinary turning point in US history just eleven years after Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay couples to wed. In that time Barack Obama became the first US president to back gay marriage and public opinion shifted rapidly in favour of allowing gays and lesbians to wed.

The court's four liberal justices were joined by Anthony Kennedy, a centrist judge to pass the decision on a 5-4 vote. All four of the court's conservatives voted against.

"Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions," Justice Kennedy wrote. "They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

Antonin Scalia, one the court's most conservative justices, said the court's decision was a "threat to American democracy".

The ruling brings to an end a strange legal limbo where same-sex marriage was legal in 37 of America's 50 states but remained banned in the others. The marriage of a gay couple in one state would also not be recognised in another. Today's ruling evens the law across the entire country and is expected to be met with a race by same-sex couples to town halls and courts in states where gay marriage was once prohibited.

The ruling from Washington was met with celebrations across the US and Mr Obama is expected to speak from the White House shortly. Hillary Clinton and other liberal politicians took to social media to hail the decision.
Click to expand...
 
A close call, 5 to 4, but it seems to have got the job done, according to legal scholars now talking about it...
 

This is wonderful! I must say, Justice Kennedy seems to be wising up in his old age because, in spite of some very bad decisions in his past, I agree that what he said was moving and eloquent. This ruling and yesterday's on Obamacare give me hope, satisfaction, and extra pride in our country to celebrate this Fourth of July! GOOD FOR US!!!! ;)
:torch:
 
Already, we've seen different reactions from the GOP presidential contenders on the court's gay-marriage decision.


There's anger and fight.

Mike Huckabee: "I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat."
Rick Santorum: "The Court is one of three co-equal branches of government and, just as they have in cases from Dred Scott to Plessy, the Court has an imperfect track record. The stakes are too high and the issue too important to simply cede the will of the people to five unaccountable justices."

Bobby Jindal: "Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that."

Scott Walker: "I believe this Supreme Court decision is a grave mistake. Five unelected judges have taken it upon themselves to redefine the institution of marriage."




There's acceptance.

Ben Carson: "While I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's decision, their ruling is now the law of the land."

Lindsey Graham: "I am a proud defender of traditional marriage and believe the people of each state should have the right to determine their marriage laws. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that state bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional, and I will respect the Court's decision."

There's disappointment but resignation

Jeb Bush: "I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision. I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments. In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side."



And there's the call for Republicans to appoint more conservative justices.

Marco Rubio: "This decision short-circuits the political process that has been underway on the state level for years. "While I disagree with this decision, we live in a republic and must abide by the law. As we look ahead, it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood."
Maybe the biggest test will come a year from now - when the Republican Party is holding its political convention in Cleveland. Does its platform accept the Supreme Court's ruling legalizing gay marriage? Or does it keep its position that marriage should exist only between one man and one
woman.
 
QuickSilver said:
Jeb Bush: "I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision. I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments. In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side."
Click to expand...

:saywhat:

Is this waffling, or what?
 
Homosexual marriages are now declared legal in this country. So now they need to hire lawyers just like the rest of us to get out of their marriages! I guess common law marriages will count as legal, too. Very interesting. Another legal win and gold mine for lawyers! They do seem to always win for themselves.
 
QuickSilver said:
Already, we've seen different reactions from the GOP presidential contenders on the court's gay-marriage decision.


There's anger and fight.

Mike Huckabee: "I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat."
Rick Santorum: "The Court is one of three co-equal branches of government and, just as they have in cases from Dred Scott to Plessy, the Court has an imperfect track record. The stakes are too high and the issue too important to simply cede the will of the people to five unaccountable justices."

Bobby Jindal: "Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that."

Scott Walker: "I believe this Supreme Court decision is a grave mistake. Five unelected judges have taken it upon themselves to redefine the institution of marriage."




There's acceptance.

Ben Carson: "While I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's decision, their ruling is now the law of the land."

Lindsey Graham: "I am a proud defender of traditional marriage and believe the people of each state should have the right to determine their marriage laws. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that state bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional, and I will respect the Court's decision."

There's disappointment but resignation

Jeb Bush: "I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision. I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments. In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side."



And there's the call for Republicans to appoint more conservative justices.

Marco Rubio: "This decision short-circuits the political process that has been underway on the state level for years. "While I disagree with this decision, we live in a republic and must abide by the law. As we look ahead, it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood."
Maybe the biggest test will come a year from now - when the Republican Party is holding its political convention in Cleveland. Does its platform accept the Supreme Court's ruling legalizing gay marriage? Or does it keep its position that marriage should exist only between one man and one
woman.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Where were they when "five unelected judges" betrayed the American people and undermined our Constitution by greasing George W. Bush into our White House?
 
~Lenore said:
Homosexual marriages are now declared legal in this country. So now they need to hire lawyers just like the rest of us to get out of their marriages! I guess common law marriages will count as legal, too. Very interesting. Another legal win and gold mine for lawyers! They do seem to always win for themselves.
Click to expand...

Each state has it's own law with regard to common law marriage. In California it is not legal. This ruling has nothing to do with common law marriage.
 
As I see it the Supreme Court has just ruled against the courts of he states and rewrote those laws to include same sex marriages. What the Supreme Court can not do is tell religions how they will respond to marriage rules. Religions are protected but not controlled by our court system.
 
BobF said:
As I see it the Supreme Court has just ruled against the courts of he states and rewrote those laws to include same sex marriages. What the Supreme Court can not do is tell religions how they will respond to marriage rules. Religions are protected but not controlled by our court system.
Click to expand...

Just not having a good week are ya Bob. Your Republican majority SCOTUS has just thrown a couple of wrenches into your theories about "the constitution", ehhhhh?
 
BobF said:
As I see it the Supreme Court has just ruled against the courts of he states and rewrote those laws to include same sex marriages. What the Supreme Court can not do is tell religions how they will respond to marriage rules. Religions are protected but not controlled by our court system.
Click to expand...

I agree... Religions have a right to feel as they wish about Gay marriage.. but they should stay out of it.. Just has the Government can not tell them what to do. Marriage is a legal contract no different than any other and is under complete juristiction of the State.. in this case being the Government. Since Federal law supercedes all State laws... and since the Supreme Court trumps all lower courts.. marriage is a constitutional right for everyone and there can no longer be discrimination.

You just have to deal with that...
 
Davey Jones said:
but,but what if 3 people want to get married???
Click to expand...
Today's decision is all about the 14th Amendment... equal protection. You can bring up all the red herrings you want.... polygamy, beastiality, etc. This decision has nothing to do with your "3 people wanting to get married".

Today's decision is most easily explained by the following. Bill and Mary want to get married. They go to the local Courthouse and are issued a marriage license. Bill and John want to get married. They go to the local Courthouse and are refused a marriage license because of their gender. John does not have the same... equal... protection as did Mary. If polygamy was legal in the U.S. and a man could have more than one wife, the 14th Amendment would grant equal protection to ladies. Hence, if a lady wanted more than one husband that wish could not be denied. Bigamy/polygamy is NOT legal for EITHER gender so that argument is not a valid one.

In this Country, two people who love each other can get married. Up until today, in many states, those two people had to be of opposite gender. Equal protection was lost.

I do not hold with same-sex marriage. Likewise, I do not hold with mixed-race marriage. Our children chose spouses of opposite gender and same race. However, just because my personal beliefs do not meld with some people's choices in spouses, the 14th Amendment guarantees that equal protection. We should be proud of the work done by those who have gone before in crafting the Constitution and the amendments that have been ratified. The 14th guarantees ME and MY family equal protection. Today's decision was the correct one!!!
 
This has been an awfully long time coming and is the very LEAST a society claiming to be 'civilized' can do. NOW, perhaps we can all work on the disbanding of the obsolete and ineffectual two-party system of American government.
 
The irony here is one of the judges who was a no vote, Thomas, is black and married to a white woman. Had the earlier SCOTUS not ruled Virginia law outlawing interracial marriage, he could not today be married to a white lady. Can you say hypocrite?
 
truespock said:
This has been an awfully long time coming and is the very LEAST a society claiming to be 'civilized' can do. NOW, perhaps we can all work on the disbanding of the obsolete and ineffectual two-party system of American government.
Click to expand...

Your comment reminded me of what we've heard so often recently from the GOP. You want to repeal and replace. OK what's your replacement plan for our current system of governance?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top