The Supreme Court declared Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the United States.
Gay and lesbian couples already could marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The court's 5-4 ruling means the remaining 14 states, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage.
Quote from here, although it's all over the internet by now.
Rainbow confetti is go, guys. Opinions, assorted thoughts?
About time now don't you think? Not a fan of people who declare that the Constitution is something that needs to be adhered to so prudishly and slavishly when the majority of people support a certain issue that "goes against" it. Rules should be adhered to, but times change, and rules should change with them too.
About time now don't you think? Not a fan of people who declare that the Constitution is something that needs to be adhered to so prudishly and slavishly when the majority of people support a certain issue that "goes against" it. Rules should be adhered to, but times change, and rules should change with them too.
Yeah like the right to bare muskets in order to defend the colonies against the British. I think we're past that now.
I predicted it would happen in 2016. This time, the real Supreme Court worked faster than my imaginary version of it did.
@GhostOfNinja Many people in the country do not approve of this ruling, but personal and religious beliefs are not an excuse to keep citizens from marrying the person they want to marry.
I know what the ruling was, no need to be condescending ^^
I live in California so there shouldn't be too many issues here, but do you really think same-sex marriage will be accepted without any sort of complaint whatsoever in certain areas of the country, namely the South? Not everyone is as accepting as you or me.
do you really think same-sex marriage will be accepted without any sort of complaint whatsoever in certain areas of the country, namely the South?
Couple of counties (in Alabama and Mississipi iirc) have made statements implying they will no longer be marrying any couples, so yeah... It's hilariously petty.
but do you really think same-sex marriage will be accepted without any sort of complaint whatsoever in certain areas of the country, namely the South? Not everyone is as accepting as you or me.
Many people all over the country are outraged about the ruling. If the supreme court had waited for those people to be accepting of the differences of others before putting this into law, we would have had to wait another century for national marriage equality. They may never accept the idea of same-sex couples legally being allowed to marry, but waiting for people who hate change to accept change is not an excuse to keep a law from being passed.
Couple of counties (in Alabama and Mississipi iirc) have made statements implying they will no longer be marrying any couples, so yeah... It's hilariously petty.
Heard about this too. I hope they won't actually go through with that.
Many people all over the country are outraged about the ruling. If the supreme court had waited for those people to be accepting of the differences of others before putting this into law, we would have had to wait another century for national marriage equality. They may never accept the idea of same-sex couples legally being allowed to marry, but waiting for people who hate change to accept change is not an excuse to keep a law from being passed.
Oh yeah, I'm fully in favor of the decision. I'm just wondering how severe the backlash will be.
The Supreme Court has for the longest of time had the ability to more or less decide policy indirectly (Enforcing their judgement/policy however, is a wholly different matter that states and agencies can maneuver around). For one, it can strike down laws that it deems unconstitutional, and it can and has done the reverse. This doesn't bother people the least bit in reality, it only bothers them if the policies passed do not align perfectly with their own self beliefs. It's really only then that people beat upon the drum of venerating the constitution and sticking to old ways. Essentially, it's all about whether the ruling fits your own ideals. If the Supreme Court passed a ruling tomorrow stated that the federal government cannot force states to undertake gun control policies passed on a federal level, it would be the toast of town down South.
It was mentioned by yourself that what Bush did by "expanding power to fight terrorism was wrong, but at least he did it for the right reasons." . This is very much subjective and opinion based on what is morally correct or not. The same can be said of the recent gay marriage ruling.
The Supreme Court's rulings in all cases will inevitably affect policies and laws, that is a given. It is not a power taken away from individual states, if the states can prove that the ruling is unconstitutional. However, it is again important to stress that the Supreme Court cannot directly enforce its rulings; it relies on respect for the Constitution and for the law for adherence to its judgments.
-------
He is doing whatever he can to take away our freedom and ability to protect ourselves.
From the eyes of homosexuals, the Court's ruling and any policy passed by the Obama administration (Separate and distinct institutions in themselves) gave them their freedom. They also do not take away any freedom from heterosexual couples or homophobes for that matter. Everyone is still free to marry.
The constitution isn't perfect but it is so much better to follow it strictly than to ignore it.
The judges favouring the ruling based their arguments heavily upon the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, so one cannot say that the ruling is unconstitutional. Furthermore, the Constitution, whilst a wonderful document will only remain valuable if the judges and people adhering to it, adapt it to the times. It is not an infallible and sacred work, quite to the contrary. If it does not change appropriately with the times, it risks being just a moribund, narrow and ironbound document. That is also why we have amendments - the good people who wrote the Constitution cannot possibly have foreseen every future societal upheavals and changes.
As far as the issue itself, I don't think that state governments or national governmental powers should regulate it. Marriage should be completely separate from the law. No one should force pastors to marry gays and no one should say gays can't be married. Gays could already be married before this. They just couldn't get a document saying it. There should be no document.
This is one of those things where arguing what "should be" is pointless because it's so far removed from reality that trying to live according to what "should be" is impossible, as everyone else around you accepts that the world is currently working how the world is working.
There's no movement that I know of with any sort of clout that's trying to get rid of the legal impacts of marriage so at least for the foreseeable future it is necessary to assume that it will stay.
As an argument it is also more against marriage having legal impact than it is against gay people being able to marry on equal terms to straight people, so I'm not sure why you'd, on that basis, care that they now can.
Marriage should be completely separate from the law.
official marriage is done by the government, not by church.
because the government provide married people with a different treatment then singles... the only thing that the church does is the ceremony and cultural bla bla bla... there is nothing really official about it. so if the church does not want to marry a gay couple then that is fine. they dont have to for the marriage to be recognized.. and if the gays really want to get the whole ceremony and stuff. then send them over here to the netherlands we have enough churches that are willing and happy to marry gay people.. (of course also some that do not want it, but still enough who do so...)
