Nevertooold - 2015-06-26 12:13 PM I think they should be able to share in the great delight of divorce. Can't wait to hear the whining when that happens..LOL 

TXBO - 2015-06-26 11:27 AM Scalia's dissents are always interesting to read.  This one is rather poignant:



"This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee

of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant

praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important

liberty they asserted in the Declaration of

Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the

freedom to govern themselves."

Scalia 

FlyingHigh1454 - 2015-06-26 10:40 AM I'm a firm believer that anyone who wants to get married should. Anyone who doesn't agree can go blow smoke because their opinion doesn't matter anymore. It's passed, its law, now people can get over it.

MS2011 - 2015-06-26 12:34 PM

So - I can't pick which of my baby daddies I want to marry.... By this logic I can marry them both!!!  Whoop!  

Pologamy is ok? 
Can I marry my 14 year old cousin if her parents consent?
I really really love my dog....I'm gonna marry him.. (seems fine by your logic).

What about state's rights?
 

jbhoot - 2015-06-26 1:05 PM Since SCOTUS just took away the States right to determine whom can marry whom you are correct. They have left the door wide open on this and any of the state laws that pertain are void. So if you want to marry your minor cousin of the same sex feel free under this decision the state can't stop you. Keep in mind that federal law supersedes state and local laws.

jbhoot - 2015-06-26 8:52 AM I am neither for or against the issue of gay marriage. However SCOTUS just ignored 50,000,000 voters in several states that voted against gay marriage in their States. SCOTUS has never ruled on marriage since 1789 they have left it up to the States and their voters as of today it is now federal. Gay marriage in some form was going to happen either way it was legal in 36 states anyway but this issue is in no way defined under Federal law. They have also left open the issue of Religious objection which is defined under the Constitution. In both cases to me they are rewriting law in their opinions.

TXBO - 2015-06-26 1:11 PM


Isn't there a father/daughter couple planning to marry already?  Seems like it was NY or NJ. 

Anniemae - 2015-06-26 1:18 PM


Loving v. Virginia (1967) is an example of the SCOTUS overturning state laws in regards to marriage (overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883). Of course, this had nothing to do with same sex marriage, but at the time, was a highly controversial matter dealing with interracial marriage. The ruling invalidated state Anti-miscegenation laws, and was generally considered an unpopular ruling particularly by the southern states.  Interesting to note, SCOTUS ruling on Loving v. Virginia was unanimous.  

jbhoot - 2015-06-26 11:39 AM That case was not argued on marriage it was argued on race that was expressly defined under the 14th amendment. This case was argued under the 14th amendment also in which SCOUS has now added SEX. By doing this they have in effect changed the text of the of the 14th amendment with out the States or it's voters input.

MS2011 - 2015-06-26 12:34 PM So - I can't pick which of my baby daddies I want to marry.... By this logic I can marry them both!!!  Whoop!  



Pologamy is ok? 

Can I marry my 14 year old cousin if her parents consent?

I really really love my dog....I'm gonna marry him.. (seems fine by your logic).



What about state's rights?

 

oija - 2015-06-26 5:37 PM I'm just going to be honest. Hopefully this decision will at least keep the next election focused on issues that have more to do with government, like foreign affairs and trade, and less to do with people's personal lives

Anniemae - 2015-06-26 2:33 PM

Both cases cited the 14th amendment, specifically section 1. 
Both cases concern marriage and the states definition therein. One was interracial, one was same sex.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The text to the 14th amendment hasn't been changed or altered. The interpretation of the 14th amendment has been futher defined by today's SCOTUS ruling.     
 
 

Bear - 2015-06-26 9:41 PM

I'm glad the gay marriage war that has been going on is finally drawing to a close. Public opinion on this matter has shifted dramatically over the last 20 years. Oh, the debates will continue, for sure, but legally it's a done deal.
As to the state's rights being a "cop out", I couldn't disagree more. States rights is, or used to be, protected by the Bill of Rights, specifically the 10th ammendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". Jd&ez feels it's a cop out. I disagree.
As to abortion, I actually agree with jd&ez, in that I hate them and am against them. I don't think the abortion battle can be completely won through legislation or in the courtrooms. Realistically, I think the best we can do is to win hearts and minds on the issue, and appeal to people's better angels. One thing that I have a problem with is the cliche' about a woman's right to do what she sees fit to her body. That's fine, except what about the baby's rights? If people feel that an unborn child is not a living human being and can be extinguished on a whim, under the guise of a woman's freedom to do what she wants to her body, then I have a problem with that. Using the "pro choice" brand of logic, if a pregnant woman is shot in the belly by some man and the baby dies, then I guess the assailant cannot be charged with murder. That would fall under the category of unintended consequences. I've yet to get a straight answer to that scenario.