Supreme court of the USA rules on same sex marriage

[Rincewiend]

^ I wouldn't say so. I'm a conservative and I have no problem with any of this.

Me neither. As long as churches aren't forced to marry homosexuals the majority of the public will be fine with the ruling.

This hasn't happened in my country or Canada or other countries who have had equal marriage for a while, so i doubt this will happen in the USA...

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

Good riddance to bad rubbish. America should be for people who believe in American principles.

How about for people who have principals?

"American principals" aren't always good or right.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

It's too much too fast, I tell you!

It's interesting that it had to be explicitly banned first, before becoming the law of teh land.
What happened before 1995 if a gay couple wanted to get married? Could they technically have legally done it and were just universally discriminated against?

 

[Rincewiend]

 

[Robert Maxwell]

That's an interesting question.

Essentially, a lot of states, counties, and cities had already outlawed same-sex marriage back in the '70s. It must be pointed out that homosexual relations themselves were criminalized in much of the US until 2003.

So what happened was that, in 1993, Hawai'i was considering letting same-sex couples marry. Because it had been a long-standing legal custom in the US that marriages were "portable" from one state to another (meaning that, even though different states may have varying standards on how marriages are conducted and defined, each state would recognize any other state's marriages), and many states didn't want to recognize same-sex marriages, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which basically said states don't have to recognize same-sex marriages if they don't want to. This is what led to the many statutory and then constitutional bans.

No one would've even been trying to get married before the '90s because before that, you had gay people being stigmatized over the HIV epidemic, and before that gay people were often abused and killed by police and hateful bigots. The idea of gaining the right to marry would've been unthinkable back then. It was only with the growing acceptance of homosexuality as a valid sexual orientation that same-sex marriage became a real possibility.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

It's certainly an interesting situation. Most of me thinks that it's dumb that we're just now finally letting this happen. A small part of me is worried about the backlash. 5-4 isn't exactly a sweeping victory. There are still plenty of politicians in office that oppose this kind of thing.

It's a sad thing to say, but I really wonder what the country will be like in 20-30 years after all the old politicians and voters have died off.

But really what are people afraid of? The world has to change and grow, and progress.

As a world at large we can't keep clinging to the past and we have to grow, advance, and evolve..

 

[Gryffindorian]

Good riddance to bad rubbish. America should be for people who believe in American principles.

How about for people who have principals?

"American principals" aren't always good or right.

What do school principals have to do with any of this?

 

[Squiggy]

^ I wouldn't say so. I'm a conservative and I have no problem with any of this.

Me neither. As long as churches aren't forced to marry homosexuals the majority of the public will be fine with the ruling.

Of course they won't. They can't. There's another amendment protecting them.

 

[auntiehill]

Yeah, it's funny how the whole "civil rights for everyone" thing works.

 

[galleywest]

It's certainly an interesting situation. Most of me thinks that it's dumb that we're just now finally letting this happen. A small part of me is worried about the backlash. 5-4 isn't exactly a sweeping victory. There are still plenty of politicians in office that oppose this kind of thing.

It's a sad thing to say, but I really wonder what the country will be like in 20-30 years after all the old politicians and voters have died off.

But really what are people afraid of? The world has to change and grow, and progress.

As a world at large we can't keep clinging to the past and we have to grow, advance, and evolve..

I teach college students, and I can say that accepting diversity seems to be something at which Millennials excel. I have high hopes for them.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

Good riddance to bad rubbish. America should be for people who believe in American principles.

How about for people who have principals?

"American principals" aren't always good or right.

What do school principals have to do with any of this?

When I was in school, I spent a lot of time in the principal's office.

So the short answer is, I have no idea.

 

[galleywest]

How about for people who have principals?

"American principals" aren't always good or right.

What do school principals have to do with any of this?

When I was in school, I spent a lot of time in the principal's office.

So the short answer is, I have no idea.

Wait wait wait--so now if you want to get gay married you have to go to the principal's office?? What is this country coming to?!

 

[scotpens]

Some of the backlash is happening, but it's actually quite comical.. One of my co-workers expressed his disappointment in the ruling (He's a far right wingnut) "Now, there's no place I can go in America without Gays...Guess I'll have to go to Canada.."

I hate to disillusion the guy, but there's no place in the world you can go that doesn't have gays -- except maybe Antarctica. And that place probably has a few gay penguins.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

And so it begins.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/27/gay-marriage-southern-backlash-supreme-court-ruling

 

[Hound of UIster]

No surprise one of these governors is running for President.

I'm sure glad it's all rooted in his sincere beliefs and not sheer political opportunism.

 

[RJDiogenes]

It's certainly an interesting situation. Most of me thinks that it's dumb that we're just now finally letting this happen. A small part of me is worried about the backlash. 5-4 isn't exactly a sweeping victory. There are still plenty of politicians in office that oppose this kind of thing.

It's a sad thing to say, but I really wonder what the country will be like in 20-30 years after all the old politicians and voters have died off.

You are wise to be concerned. You can never be sure how which way the winds of politics will blow. The Civil Rights Movement, Women's Lib, and the Sexual Revolution were nearly half a century ago and look where succeeding generations have brought us. This is why Jefferson that that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Even if you fix something, it will break again without proper maintenance.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. America should be for people who believe in American principles.

How about for people who have principals?

"American principals" aren't always good or right.

And generic 'principles' are? I think equality and human are always good and right, so I'll stick with that.

 

[T'Girl]

A small part of me is worried about the backlash. 5-4 isn't exactly a sweeping victory

I would have preferred this had happened at the individual state level, instead of the federal level. Even if it had taken longer, it would have been more secure.

This feels shaky, like it's likely the ruling will be legislated around, or out of existence..

 

[Trekker4747]

What's interesting to me is how many on The Right are saying that this was the result of "activist" judges and how it shows the problem that currently exists with the form of government the Hallowed Founding Fathers set up for us nearly two and a half centuries ago. Many saying that the ruling was Un-Constitutional even though The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret The Constitution and to apply it to solve cases that come across their bench.

So, we have activist judges, judges ruling along party lines even though judges are supposed to be non-partisan and this ruling shows the cracks in the system and the problems causing America to slip into moral decay.

So, let's pick another Supreme Court case almost at random...

Hey! How about the Hobby Lobby case from last year?!

In that case Hobby Lobby was saying that they don't have to provide employees access to birth control through their health-insurance plans, that birth control conflicting with the religious beliefs the founders and operators of the company have.

The SCOTUS said that the company had the "right" to deny that coverage because being forced to provide it clashed with their religious beliefs and companies are seen as "people" now in the eyes of the government and one person cannot force another to abide by their religious beliefs. (Hmmm.... That argument sounds sort of familiar....)

The decision was lauded by Conservatives as being a huge victory for the First Amendment and America's founding, moral, religious principles.

Flash-forward a few months to today:
The SCOTUS decided that homosexuals are protected by the 14th Amendment and that they, thus, have the same rights as everyone else and cannot be denied marriage by any lower governments or courts. Decision is lauded by supporters of equal rights and homosexual rights.

The Radical Right claim it's the result of activist judges and say that the system is flawed and that the wrong call was made.

So... Looking at how the Justices voted in both of these cases we *do* see a pattern that could *maybe* be attributed to the Justices ruling along a political line. That-is the Justices who voted for Hobby Lobby in that case voted against same-sex marriage in this case. And those who voted for Marriage Equality in this voted AGAINST Hobby Lobby in that case.

The "swing"/deciding vote being Anthony Kennedy in both cases.

So, for those of you playing the SCOTUS Home Game the "activist" judges in the Home Depot Case did what was right for America and Freedom. The "activist" judges in this case are anti-America and are ruining the system. (Not the anti-voters who don't feel a large section of Americans shouldn't be treated equally and fairly.)

 

[Robert Maxwell]

And so it begins.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/27/gay-marriage-southern-backlash-supreme-court-ruling

I don't see why state officials get to use "religious objections" at all. You work for the state--that is, the people of that state. Your duty to those people trumps your religious beliefs. If you can't deal with that, resign your position.

 

[Sector 7]

Hubby's co-worker is a gay man, who married his longtime partner in California. Where we live, Texas, doesn't allow/recognize gay marriage. Recently, our friend's husband became seriously ill and was rushed to the hospital. The hospital staff wouldn't allow our friend to visit his own husband in the ICU; the nurses told him "family only," and since Texas didn't recognize gay marriage, he wasn't family. WTF!!?? Luckily, his husband recovered quickly but the couple were considering leaving Texas after that.

It's downright shameful that it's taken this long but thank GOD, progress has finally happened.

This happened to my when my soulmate was in an accident (distracted driver texting instead of driving). His parents blocked me from seeing him in the hospital, I wasn't even allowed at his funeral. After this ruling, that cannot happen to anyone again.

So anyone want to get married?

Er... I am single...

And so it begins.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/27/gay-marriage-southern-backlash-supreme-court-ruling

I don't see why state officials get to use "religious objections" at all. You work for the state--that is, the people of that state. Your duty to those people trumps your religious beliefs. If you can't deal with that, resign your position.

I agree completely. Here in North Carolina, religious wingnuts just overrode Gov. McCrory's veto... now they can legally discriminate despite the SCOTUS ruling.